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.
Liberals have made such a mess of the death penalty by throwing a monkey wrench into the whole process with endless appeals that it just doesn't seem worth it anymore. I favor the death penalty because for certain crimes allowing someone to live until they die naturally just doesn't seem right but if it takes 20 years, it doesn't seem worth it anymore unless that problem can be fixed.
Timothy McVeigh was executed 6 years after he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City and I think that is the fastest I can remember in modern times. It was only that quick because he didn't fight the execution sentence.
Incorrect. The point is, murderers are deterred from repeating their crime by being deleted from existence. Since they no longer exist, society is safer and more just. And prison guards and inmates are protected from having to deal with a sub-human beast on a daily basis for the rest of his life. And, the families and friends of the victim can enjoy the vengeance of having a brigand pay for his evil.
And, despite the usual leftist BS, other people are deterred also. Sentient living things generally avoid pain and death, and pursue activities that promote life. By attaching death as a consequence to murder, a certain, large, proportion of humans will remove murder from the checklist of potential activities. Just like we remove speeding excessively from driving our cars. We move away from penalties and increasing the chance of death, to happiness (don't have a court date today!) and continuing to live.
But the left wing has statistics! Yes they do! And figures don't lie, but liars figure.
So we conclude that the death penalty is correct, good, and moral. And it spreads the goodness by deterring most of the population from engaging in it. Not all, and always, but most, and usually.
Vengeance and punishment is a legitimate and correct rationale for capital punishment. Deterrence is irrelevant. Studies can be brought by both sides to demonstrate their point, so the deterrence argument is not useful.
I don't particularly care whether capital punishment deters crime. I care that criminals pay for their crime. And I believe that it is moral, correct, and good that we execute murderers and prevent them from enjoying the benefits of life.
I don't care what the rest of the world does, because it doesn't matter. I care what we do. And I want my country to execute murderers. And, by a 65% margin, Americans are on board with capital punishment. So, I am happy to say, it will continue.
And although the left wing will delay individual executions for as long as possible, I actually like that also.
It gives the murderer anxiety and terror for a long period of time before he actually gets his just reward. If we killed him expeditiously, we would be going too easy on him. Let him stew in the criminal justice system for years on end, AS IF HE HAD A TERMINAL ILLNESS, with all the terror that goes along with that.
I want Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to spend what would normally be fabulous youthful years, alive and well and contemplating his useless life and certain death, in the bowels of the various holding cells of the criminal justice system, for at least 10 years.
This way we combine the suffering of actual death with the psychological terror of impending death. Win-win!
In the final analysis, we do it perfectly in this country, and the left wing inadvertently and unintentionally adds to the goodness.
And, despite the usual leftist BS, other people are deterred also. Sentient living things generally avoid pain and death, and pursue activities that promote life. By attaching death as a consequence to murder, a certain, large, proportion of humans will remove murder from the checklist of potential activities. Just like we remove speeding excessively from driving our cars. We move away from penalties and increasing the chance of death, to happiness (don't have a court date today!) and continuing to live.
Despite what leftist say? Seriously?
If the death penalty deters other people from committing crimes, states with the death penalty would have lower rates of violent crime than states without the death penalty. But that is not the case. So in fact, others aren't deterred when you execute someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
But the left wing has statistics! Yes they do! And figures don't lie, but liars figure.
What does that even mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Vengeance and punishment is a legitimate and correct rationale for capital punishment. Deterrence is irrelevant. Studies can be brought by both sides to demonstrate their point, so the deterrence argument is not useful.
Deterrence is irrelevant?
And no, your side actually doesn't have a study that proves executing people brings crime down. So only one side has a deterrence argument and it disproves deterrence, but being what you've shown yourself to be in this debate, you rule it irrelevant because your side can't use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
I don't particularly care whether capital punishment deters crime. I care that criminals pay for their crime. And I believe that it is moral, correct, and good that we execute murderers and prevent them from enjoying the benefits of life.
That still allows violent crime to happen though. Which I want to resolve. By addressing the issue of crime before it happens, not as it happens. That's how we ensure safety. Killing someone after they've killed someone is worthless to the person who's been killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
I don't care what the rest of the world does, because it doesn't matter. I care what we do. And I want my country to execute murderers. And, by a 65% margin, Americans are on board with capital punishment. So, I am happy to say, it will continue.
I've seen numbers smaller than 65%. That number is going down. Younger people are far more progressive and forward thinking. As the reactionaries die, progress will continue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
And although the left wing will delay individual executions for as long as possible, I actually like that also. It gives the murderer anxiety and terror for a long period of time before he actually gets his just reward. If we killed him expeditiously, we would be going too easy on him. Let him stew in the criminal justice system for years on end, AS IF HE HAD A TERMINAL ILLNESS, with all the terror that goes along with that.
It also $1 million than putting them in prison for life. But yeah, leftist are the socialists with all their public spending...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
I want Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to spend what would normally be fabulous youthful years, alive and well and contemplating his useless life and certain death, in the bowels of the various holding cells of the criminal justice system, for at least 10 years.
You do know he wants to be executed, right? He wants to be martyred. Killing him is what he actually desires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
This way we combine the suffering of actual death with the psychological terror of impending death. Win-win!
How is that a win-win? Either you're a sociopath (which wouldn't shock me based on how turned on you get by the idea of killing people) or you don't know how anything works, but know one actually gains anything from keeping people on death row for a long time. Actually, collectively we lose 1 million dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
In the final analysis, we do it perfectly in this country, and the left wing inadvertently and unintentionally adds to the goodness.
We haven't done anything perfect in this country for quite some time. The fact that the death penalty costs PER CASE $1 million more (that's $1,000,000 if it helps) than life in prison would proves that the system is far from perfect.
Then why don't you explain this Marc: "Nebraska has repealed the death penalty following a dramatic vote Wednesday by state lawmakers to override the governor’s veto."
This discussion is getting totally bogged down it seems to me, and the points being argued are becoming ever more obscure.
The overriding issue is: IS IT RIGHT AND MORAL TO EMPLOY PEOPLE TO KILL OTHERS FOR WHATEVER REASON?
To any forward thinking civilized country the answer must be NO as demonstrated by almost the entire western world.
We've already looked at the lists of countries which have and have not the death penalty, and it would take a blind man not recognize the US's uncomfortable place in those lists.
A reminder - The Death Penalty Worldwide
That said, if the US is happy with that position then it obviously belongs on that list, ironically in company with areas of the world that pose the most serious threats to it.
I would think the US would want to distance itself from that list.
The problem with capital punishment is abuse of due process in fighting it. Due process has metastasized far beyond its purpose to include almost an imaginable fairy tale a criminal's lawyer can come with.
In October 1893 a Chicago mayor was murdered. In July 1894 the murderer was hung. That's all the time needed to review any case, capital or otherwise. That's how it should be handled now.
Another thing: In some states drugs are available for people who want to commit suicide. If those drugs are OK to use for suicide, they should be used for executions without any problem being raised.
The problem with capital punishment is abuse of due process in fighting it. Due process has metastasized far beyond its purpose to include almost an imaginable fairy tale a criminal's lawyer can come with.
In October 1893 a Chicago mayor was murdered. In July 1894 the murderer was hung. That's all the time needed to review any case, capital or otherwise. That's how it should be handled now.
Another thing: In some states drugs are available for people who want to commit suicide. If those drugs are OK to use for suicide, they should be used for executions without any problem being raised.
Wouldn't be much use if he'd subsequently been found innocent though would it. This is the glaring flaw in your thinking. Or is it ok to kill the odd innocent or two?
This discussion is getting totally bogged down it seems to me, and the points being argued are becoming ever more obscure.
The overriding issue is: IS IT RIGHT AND MORAL TO EMPLOY PEOPLE TO KILL OTHERS FOR WHATEVER REASON?
To any forward thinking civilized country the answer must be NO as demonstrated by almost the entire western world.
We've already looked at the lists of countries which have and have not the death penalty, and it would take a blind man not recognize the US's uncomfortable place in those lists.
A reminder - The Death Penalty Worldwide
That said, if the US is happy with that position then it obviously belongs on that list, ironically in company with areas of the world that pose the most serious threats to it.
I would think the US would want to distance itself from that list.
Indeed, lets go back to the OPs post and see what is really being asked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490
With many prisoners on death row for 30+ years such as the case in California should it just be abolished. Americans are so concerned with the possibly that an innocent man getting executed that we allow years and in some cases decades of delays. An example would be Lawrence Bittaker AKA ( Tool Box Killer ) a man that has been on California death row for 34 years since 1981.
Recently a California judge has ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment to keep people on death row so long, but i say it's cruel and unusual for the victims family's.
If Americans want to continue to use the death penalty we need to accept some small percentage will be put to death who are innocent and shorten the appeals process to a few years, or get rid of capital punishment all together if we can't live with the fact that some innocent people will be put to death.
So I got from that a few things:
-cruel and unusual punishment
-efficiency and cost
-possibility of executing innocence
So, lets look at cruel. The constitution specifically bans cruel and unusual punishment. The problem with that is that it's kind of vague. What constitutes as cruel and unusual? According to the CIA, nothing, but most people would disagree. Torture, for example, most would say is absolutely unacceptable. But in the case of a murderer, in our current state, most are faced with either life without parole or execution. Between the two, I'd actually prefer to just die. I see execution as being a vestige of a less moral society, but I see life imprisonment without the option to ever get out as an act of pure evil. But we shouldn't be forced to choose the lesser of the two evils. I think we need massive justice reform; life time incarceration should only spawn from an observed need, not a definite sentence. Life is also the most precious thing. Think about this; there are millions of sperm cells in a single load, and only one crossed the finish line. You are a random anomaly. Taking that away from someone is always wrong, which is why murder is a punishable offense in the first place. So to that I say, execution is, if not cruel, very much unusual.
Efficiency speaks for itself. The average cost of a death penalty case is 1 million more than what life in prison costs. Given I think both need to go, imagine how much cheaper prison would be if we have a justice system that worried about rehabilitation and prevention over punishment. And of course, if the courts are bogged down with lengthy death row trials, what does that mean for other cases? Are they sidelined and held off so we can have a convicted murderer sit in court for the 28th time so we can decide when his next appeal is? That's entirely pointless. The constitution calls for a speedy trial. Let's give short sentences and expand them if the need arises, and be done with it. And none of that plea bargain BS, which only came about when someone asked 'why is a drug peddler getting a decade, which is what that rapist also got?'
Anyone who is ok with executing an innocent person is pure evil. Murderers kill the innocent. The execution of an innocent person is murder that people get away with. It's absolutely unacceptable.
I want Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to spend what would normally be fabulous youthful years, alive and well and contemplating his useless life and certain death, in the bowels of the various holding cells of the criminal justice system, for at least 10 years.
that where you and i are different, i wish they kill him this afternoon or at least before lunch tomorrow
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.
