Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you make the decision to end the life of another person without justification, you are forfeiting your own.
Capital punishment is punishment for a crime. It may or may not be a deterrent, but that is irrelevant.
My biggest concern is having a very high bar set for the state in capital punishment so the odds of the wrong person being convicted are astronomical unless the person has essentially been complicit in convicting himself/herself (which has happened).
------------------
BTW, the people who keep talking about death row inmates not killing again in prison seem to either ignore or forget that those death row inmates immediately turn into "life" inmates once you remove them from death row.
Prisoners in for life do have quite the track record of killing other prisoners.
Or the state could simply abolish the death penalty.
Nah
I don't understand why people have a problem with the concept of "revenge". If someone kills someone, why shouldn't there be an element of revenge? I'm fine with the state taking revenge for the victims of crime if it helps maintain order.
Last edited by War Beagle; 04-21-2015 at 07:13 AM..
I don't understand why people have a problem with the concept of "revenge". If someone kills someone, why shouldn't there be an element of revenge? I'm fine with the state taking revenge for the victims of crime if it helps maintain order.
Revenge would be taken by the original victim or a family member or friend of that victim and is based upon emotion. Our judicial system isn't based upon that but on the state looking at facts, without an emotional attachment, and deciding upon guilt and punishment. They are not the same.
You'll have to provide statistics from a more objective source than "working for alternatives to the death penalty." According to the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial Fund, 411 correctional officers have died in the line of duty as a result of being shot, stabbed, or beaten. For every one of those 411 officers who were killed, there was a wife who lost her husband, a little child who lost their daddy, a woman who lost her sister, and so on. National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund: Honoring Fallen Corrections Officers
I'm not even going to go digging for the number of inmates and civilian employees who have been killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xircal
Also, prisoners with violent tendencies are often segregated from the rest of the prison population.
They still have contact with other inmates, COs, and civilian employees, thus, they still have access to potential victims of murder, rape, and assault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xircal
I think you can rest assured that the institutions which are responsible for running prisons are very much aware of the dangers and take adequate steps to minimize the risk to both other prisoners and guards.
But they can't keep the rate of violent crime at 0%. The simple fact is this: the more inmates that are in any given unit, the higher the likelihood of violence (and I am NOT insinuating that all inmates are violent).
I'm not willing to risk the lives of prisoners, guards, and civilians (and the families' livelihood and peace of mind) just so that a convicted murderer can live until natural death behind bars (where he/she remains a threat) at taxpayer expense.
You'll have to provide statistics from a more objective source than "working for alternatives to the death penalty." According to the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial Fund, 411 correctional officers have died in the line of duty as a result of being shot, stabbed, or beaten. For every one of those 411 officers who were killed, there was a wife who lost her husband, a little child who lost their daddy, a woman who lost her sister, and so on. National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund: Honoring Fallen Corrections Officers
I'm not even going to go digging for the number of inmates and civilian employees who have been killed.
They still have contact with other inmates, COs, and civilian employees, thus, they still have access to potential victims of murder, rape, and assault.
But they can't keep the rate of violent crime at 0%. The simple fact is this: the more inmates that are in any given unit, the higher the likelihood of violence (and I am NOT insinuating that all inmates are violent).
I'm not willing to risk the lives of prisoners, guards, and civilians (and the families' livelihood and peace of mind) just so that a convicted murderer can live until natural death behind bars (where he/she remains a threat) at taxpayer expense.
so, you told us absolutely nothing. You post a link proving that correctional officers have died, but fail to show that there is any link to them being injured or killed by prisoners doing time for capital offenses. You talk about inmates having access to victims but can't provide a link because that is just something you made up.
"lifers" generally program pretty well, since they know they aren't going home, they realize that their behavior while in prison is the only thing that they can control and they avoid violence so that they can earn privileges such as being allowed out of their cell to eat meals with other inmates. The really violent inmates, at least in California are young men who are doing a fixed term and have gang affiliation - that is why Pelican Bay and Corcoran have a much higher rate of violence than prisons like San Quentin which houses a lot of lifers.
I don't understand why people have a problem with the concept of "revenge". If someone kills someone, why shouldn't there be an element of revenge? I'm fine with the state taking revenge for the victims of crime if it helps maintain order.
But that's just the point: it doesn't maintain order. All that happens is that people rush out and buy even more guns to add to their already sizeable arsenal as if having an extra couple of assault rifles in the house is somehow going to keep them safe.
The main reason the death penalty isn't a deterrent is because the murderer always thinks they will never be caught.
But that's just the point: it doesn't maintain order. All that happens is that people rush out and buy even more guns to add to their already sizeable arsenal as if having an extra couple of assault rifles in the house is somehow going to keep them safe.
The main reason the death penalty isn't a deterrent is because the murderer always thinks they will never be caught.
It maintains order if the state is doing the killing rather than vigilante justice. You can make the argument that life in prison is justice, but a lot of people don't think allowing a murderer to live, even in prison, is justice. It's because we can't even agree as a society what "justice" entails is why there is little room for compromise on the issue of capital punishment.
As for guns, it basically comes down to two perspectives:
Anti-gun: The state will maintain law and order and people have no need to look after their own safety.
Pro-gun: The state cannot always be there to protect us. The only way for that to happen would be with a police state, which is a whole different set of problems. Others would argue that the purpose of guns is to keep the state in check, which is most likely the original intent of the second amendment.
I'm pro-gun because I recognize that the state cannot protect me from criminals 100% of the time. Where I live, the state does a good job, but there will always be failures in the law enforcement system. When I am in my house, there is a minuscule chance of law enforcement independently detecting an armed robbery. By owning guns, I at least have a chance against criminals. The people who would ban guns condemn the people unfortunate enough to face an armed criminal with absolutely no chance for self-defense.
You'll have to provide statistics from a more objective source than "working for alternatives to the death penalty." According to the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial Fund, 411 correctional officers have died in the line of duty as a result of being shot, stabbed, or beaten. For every one of those 411 officers who were killed, there was a wife who lost her husband, a little child who lost their daddy, a woman who lost her sister, and so on. National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund: Honoring Fallen Corrections Officers
I'm not even going to go digging for the number of inmates and civilian employees who have been killed.
It's ironical that you don't understand that you're contradicting yourself. You're saying that the death penalty is a deterrent, yet you say that 411 correctional officers have died in the line of duty.
So where's the deterrent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
They still have contact with other inmates, COs, and civilian employees, thus, they still have access to potential victims of murder, rape, and assault.
You seem to think that once a prisoner has been incarcerated, they're going to have free rein to go on a killing spree without anyone noticing which is ludicrous.
Life in prison is not like that. Prisoners tend to settle down and reflect on the crimes they committed and how they now have to live from day to day behind bars. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/sc...s-stories.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
But they can't keep the rate of violent crime at 0%. The simple fact is this: the more inmates that are in any given unit, the higher the likelihood of violence (and I am NOT insinuating that all inmates are violent).
I'm not willing to risk the lives of prisoners, guards, and civilians (and the families' livelihood and peace of mind) just so that a convicted murderer can live until natural death behind bars (where he/she remains a threat) at taxpayer expense.
A natural death behind bars is a far bigger deterrent than the death penalty. Imagine for a moment that you were confined to your bathroom for the next 50 years, never being allowed out into the world again, never meeting someone, settling down and bringing up a family, never being able to choose where to go on vacation, never being able to drive somewhere and have a picnic with your girlfriend. The list of things you cannot do anymore except stare out of the bars of your cell is endless and you might well wish that they will execute you.
The Chinese proved they are more efficient than we are at executions. They have an active fire squad everyday. People are executed daily in China.
If they don't execute felons, their population will be out of control and crime will be even harder to control.
A bullet is a lot cheaper than gas and easier to watch than hanging someone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
