NationStates Jolt Archive

how can countries be 'civilised' if they still allow such barbaric acts as execution?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/moved_sm.jpg UN > General

I tend to agree, but you're going to get someone in here asking 'How can countries be 'civilised' if they still allow violent criminals to go free?', or some plausible paraphrase.

how can countries be 'civilised' if they still allow such barbaric acts as execution?

They can't.

how can countries be 'civilised' if they still allow such barbaric acts as execution?

Because the guy they executed wasn't civilized.

EG: Michael Ross. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834496/

how can countries be 'civilised' if they still allow such barbaric acts as execution?
Because they keep telling you it's barbaric. Think for yourself sometime.

Because the guy they executed wasn't civilized.

EG: Michael Ross. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834496/

If it's supposed to be a punishment, then citing a person who /wanted/ to be executed was about the worst thing you could do.

I tend to agree, but you're going to get someone in here asking 'How can countries be 'civilised' if they still allow violent criminals to go free?', or some plausible paraphrase.
Simple but logical answer: they don't. They should lock them away and let them labor for the money spent on them.

I think that we should do away with capital punishment in a lot of aspects, except maybe as an alternative for life in prison. Some people would rather die than spend the rest of their lives in prison. I don't think it should be mandatory though. I think our prison system sentences too many people to life anyway. We need to come up with some way of reforming the system, such as privatization (with regulations of course) or rehabilitation. I don't know though, I've never been inside the system to see how either of those would work.

how can countries be 'civilised' if they still allow such barbaric acts as execution?Well, it depends on what folks get executed for. Personally I think dumb people should be executed. I find lack of intelligence far more dangerous for any society than actual criminal behavior, and the aim of executing people is the protection of society.

Heres another "the more you know..." segment.

CP is a deterant to crime. It is probably the most powerful deterant to anything really. CP costs the tax payers less (in most cases. Im not going to be naive and say all the time, but for a huge majority, it does). It also prevents the murderers from getting out and commiting more acts of horror. Finally, and maybe more importantly, it bring the families final and much needed closure.

I think that we should do away with capital punishment in a lot of aspects, except maybe as an alternative for life in prison. Some people would rather die than spend the rest of their lives in prison. I don't think it should be mandatory though. I think our prison system sentences too many people to life anyway. We need to come up with some way of reforming the system, such as privatization (with regulations of course) or rehabilitation. I don't know though, I've never been inside the system to see how either of those would work.

Thats where they get you. People wait it out, and a lot of times (i think 1 time is too much), liberal laws change, and these horrible people are often set free.

Because the guy they executed wasn't civilized.

That's true. However, I think executing the most violent criminals is not the right way to handle it. A life sentence in prison is a much better option. It gives the convict time to think about what he/she did, and leaves the possibility for rehabilitation (which is rare and should NOT be government funded, but at least the option is available). Also, from a more moral perspective, what right do we have to take the life of someone in the name of justice? You may argue, "well for the families of the victims", but I say that even will not heal the wounds of violent crimes. Furthermore, at least in the U.S., the penalty system is extremely poor. Mistakes, and unfair legal representation occurs, and even one problem is too many when dealing with life and .

Because the guy they executed wasn't civilized.

EG: Michael Ross. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834496/

Capital punishment does not have any sense of purpose. Michael Ross clearly understood that he had done wrong, which is the first step of rehabilitation. Once a man no longer poses a threat to society, do we still have the necessity or right to execute him?

Surely the purpose of 'punishment' is to rehabilitate offenders, rather that just to allow the state to sanction murder.


Capital punishment has been shown to increase violent crime:

New York, 1907-1964: In the months that followed an execution, the murder rate increased by two. This is averaged over the 57-year period.

Also note California, who, in 1968-1991 (in which no executions took place), had a murder rate that was half that of the period 1952-1967, in which the state averaged 6 executions a year.

Also note that capital punishment costs the US government between $1 million and $7 million per case, as opposed to the average life sentence cost of $500,000.

Well, it depends on what folks get executed for. Personally I think dumb people should be executed. I find lack of intelligence far more dangerous for any society than actual criminal behavior, and the aim of executing people is the protection of society.
That was one of the excuses the Nazi used for homicide. How do you describe "dumb"? What if you had a child with mental problems? Would you like him/her to be killed just because he/she has a "lack of intelligence"?

how can countries be 'civilised' if they still allow such barbaric acts as execution?

What kind of silly question is that? We put animals to sleep that are dangerous and ‘mad’ before they bite someone, and we call it the Humane Society...

So how is it not humane to put to sleep the depraved people that have proven themselves to ‘bite’?

What kind of silly question is that? We put animals to sleep that are dangerous and ‘mad’ before they bite someone, and we call it the Humane Society...

So how is it not humane to put to sleep the depraved people that have proven themselves to ‘bite’?

Because animals do not have the capacity to change, whereas humans do. We can understand our crimes and when we do, we can change our attitudes to ensure that we are an integral part of society.

And yes, rehabilitation should most certainly be government funded. It's no different to a government funding a proposal that protects its citizens. Actually, that's exactly what it is.

It's actually cheaper too. Look at California's Proposition 36 - estimated to save the state $1.5 billion over 5 years.

If it's supposed to be a punishment, then citing a person who /wanted/ to be executed was about the worst thing you could do.

Some people enjoy being flogged, too. Should we spare the rod? ;)

Seriously: I'm from CT, and that's the first person we've put to death in a long, long time... over 40 years, I think. That's why I cited it.

CP is a deterant to crime.

Prove it. And don't give me some bogus site like "prodeathpenalty.org", etc. The fact is, if someone is insane enough to , , assault, etc. then even the prospects of facing the sentence are not an deterrant. We aren't talking about normal people here--we're talking about psycopaths. What we consider to be a worthy deterrant, isn't in their eyes.

CP costs the tax payers less (in most cases. Im not going to be naive and say all the time, but for a huge majority, it does).

Not really. If you count the legal fees (appeals), on average CP is more expensive. Here's a site that lists several studies on CP and its costs relative to life in prision:
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

It also prevents the ers from getting out and commiting more acts of horror.

So does a life sentence w/o parole in a high security prison.

Capital punishment does not have any sense of purpose. Michael Ross clearly understood that he had done wrong, which is the first step of rehabilitation. Once a man no longer poses a threat to society, do we still have the necessity or right to execute him?

A man kills and rapes at least 8 people, and you call for rehabilitation? That's not justice for his vicitims. Hell, yes it's necessary to kill him. I'm not some nut that advocates capital punishment lightly, but this guy was way beyond the pale.

Surely the purpose of 'punishment' is to rehabilitate offenders, rather that just to allow the state to sanction murder.

The purpose is to keep society from falling into chaos. If I knew that I could go out and shoot my worst enemy with no repercussions... I'd have a lot less of a problem with doing it. Heck, if I was a child molester or a wife-killer, I'd be relocating to California right now!

Capital punishment has been shown to increase violent crime:

New York, 1907-1964: In the months that followed an execution, the murder rate increased by two. This is averaged over the 57-year period.

Nice try. Now take the same numbers from 1946. Amazing what not having the Great Depression in there does. ;)

Also note California, who, in 1968-1991 (in which no executions took place), had a murder rate that was half that of the period 1952-1967, in which the state averaged 6 executions a year.

And the state was in a massive period of prosperity. Crime right *now* is down, obsinately because of Roe v Wade... so death = less crime.

Also note that capital punishment costs the US government between $1 million and $7 million per case, as opposed to the average life sentence cost of $500,000.

Which is why I advocate bringing back the gallows and reusing the rope.

I can't remember what channel I saw this on, but they interviewed a child molester, and he said that they shouldn't let him out of jail, because he was going to do it again if they did. This raises an interesting question of how we should deal with him. Keeping him in prison for the rest of his life would work, but he made these statements after he was already sentenced. If you killed him, there would be no physical problems, but there would be the moral issues. However, if you paid for rehab of this man, it might not change him. It's also obvious that capital punishment doesn't deter him or any ill criminal like him.

By the way, in Guatemala, your first DUI brings a sentence of death by firing squad.

Because animals do not have the capacity to change, whereas humans do. We can understand our crimes and when we do, we can change our attitudes to ensure that we are an integral part of society.

And yes, rehabilitation should most certainly be government funded. It's no different to a government funding a proposal that protects its citizens. Actually, that's exactly what it is.

It's actually cheaper too. Look at California's Proposition 36 - estimated to save the state $1.5 billion over 5 years.

Why can't animals change? We dont' execute people because they 'might' bite someone. We execute them because they DID bite someone. They lost all value to society when they proved themselves to by a risk to society, what motivation does society have to ever 'risk' allowing this person to go free again?

If via escape, or parole, or any other form of release, an identified and known threat to society commits another crime, it's the societies fault. The next victim should never, NEVER happen. That's what governments are for.

What if the person is a sociopath? Do you think he will sit in jail and think aobut what he did? Some people are just bad and want to do bad things, giving them preschool punishments and making them take a "timeout" to "think about what they did" isn't going to do a whole lot of good for them.

Another thought, just for a second: what if the person who is sentensed to death is innocent? You can always let a person out of jail, but you can't rehabilitate a dead man except if you believe in reincarnation...

Ok. Ill get the facts posted in a bit, but please, dont start chanting that dangerous "rehabd" mantra to me. How can anyone in their right mind every begin to think that people who have commited horrific acts can be rehabilitated. Let me ask you this, if they were deemed rehabilitated, would you feel comfortable if they were living next door to you, someone who raped 2 people for a period spanning 5 days before skinning/dismembering them after 2 months of 'therapy'?

Ok. Ill get the facts posted in a bit, but please, dont start chanting that dangerous "rehabd" mantra to me. How can anyone in their right mind every begin to think that people who have commited horrific acts can be rehabilitated. Let me ask you this, if they were deemed rehabilitated, would you feel comfortable if they were living next door to you, someone who raped 2 people for a period spanning 5 days before skinning/dismembering them after 2 months of 'therapy'?
Yes, however I would immediately go buy a 12 guage and a security system. I would also carry a .38 on me at all times.



I'm just kidding. You have a good point.

A man kills and rapes at least 8 people, and you call for rehabilitation? That's not justice for his vicitims. Hell, yes it's necessary to kill him. I'm not some nut that advocates capital punishment lightly, but this guy was way beyond the pale.


No, I don't believe the state has any right to murder any individual. A man who understands what he has done and who is no longer a threat to society does not need to be murder in the way you advocate.

The purpose is to keep society from falling into chaos. If I knew that I could go out and shoot my worst enemy with no repercussions... I'd have a lot less of a problem with doing it. Heck, if I was a child molester or a wife-killer, I'd be relocating to California right now!

I'll assume you haven't read Proposition 36. I was discussing the benefits of rehabilitation in general here. Proposition 36 is drugs-based.

Nice try. Now take the same numbers from 1946. Amazing what not having the Great Depression in there does. ;)

Seeing your confidence, would you like to divulge these numbers?

And the state was in a massive period of prosperity. , obsinately because of Roe v Wade... so death = less crime.

My factor can be seen to be just as relevant as yours. You can hardly argue one is more correct than the other.

**Edit** Sorry, just found what I was looking for.

"Crime right *now* is down" - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168



Which is why I advocate bringing back the gallows and reusing the rope.

Then you must be advocating lynching, as it not the costs of the execution itself, but the legal costs for appeals that still don't work (see Leonel Torres Herrera)

I can't remember what channel I saw this on, but they interviewed a child molester, and he said that they shouldn't let him out of jail, because he was going to do it again if they did. This raises an interesting question of how we should deal with him. Keeping him in prison for the rest of his life would work, but he made these statements after he was already sentenced. If you killed him, there would be no physical problems, but there would be the moral issues. However, if you paid for rehab of this man, it might not change him. It's also obvious that capital punishment doesn't deter him or any ill criminal like him.

I don't advocate the release of unrehabilitated prisoners. Rehabilitation can't be set over a fixed period. The treatment must only end with the assessment of the offender showing that he is ready to return to society.

I don't advocate the release of unrehabilitated prisoners. Rehabilitation can't be set over a fixed period. The treatment must only end with the assessment of the offender showing that he is ready to return to society.
Yes, but can we afford to keep him in a state run prison for the next 50 years?

Just playing the devil's advocate...

Yes, but can we afford to keep him in a state run prison for the next 50 years?

Just playing the devil's advocate...


I'd just like to repeat myself:

Also note that capital punishment costs the US government between $1 million and $7 million per case, as opposed to the average life sentence cost of $500,000.

I don't advocate the release of unrehabilitated prisoners. Rehabilitation can't be set over a fixed period. The treatment must only end with the assessment of the offender showing that he is ready to return to society.

John Wayne Gacy (sp? you get the point) was not only declared very sane, but actually a genius. My point is that killers can act sane, and in many cases are, to get back onto the streets, where they can easily, and most of the time do, continure their acts of violence. how can you seriously say that some people, some very dark, disturbing people who have no value for a human life, can be rahbilitated and let back into society? I cant even fathom your logic.

I'd just like to repeat myself:
So let's just say there are only 40 of those criminals in our system. That's $20 million. What if their were some way for big governmentally contracted organizations to run prisons (regulated by laws of course). Do you think that would work? I'm not advocating the death penalty either. I'm just offering opposition to arguements.

John Wayne Gacy (sp? you get the point) was not only declared very sane, but actually a genius. My point is that killers can act sane, and in many cases are, to get back onto the streets, where they can easily, and most of the time do, continure their acts of violence. how can you seriously say that some people, some very dark, disturbing people who have no value for a human life, can be rahbilitated and let back into society? I cant even fathom your logic.

I cannot say that the US system is perfect. No one can expect to stop every single case like this, however, I'm certain that for every John Wayne Gacy (your spelling was perfect) there are hundreds of thousands of unreformed offenders who do not get released. JWG is the exception, not the rule.

Is it worth murdering prisoners who can be reformed, who can understand the reasoning behind their punishment, who can have a second shot at being part of society, just in order to stop the exceptional cases?

John Wayne Gacy (sp? you get the point) was not only declared very sane, but actually a genius. My point is that killers can act sane, and in many cases are, to get back onto the streets, where they can easily, and most of the time do, continure their acts of violence. how can you seriously say that some people, some very dark, disturbing people who have no value for a human life, can be rahbilitated and let back into society? I cant even fathom your logic.
Ahh Gacy. Many great movies were made after his story. He is an example of those criminals who are so sane and smart that they can fool psychologists. There are criminals out there who can do this, but they aren't as widespread as one would think.

So let's just say there are only 40 of those criminals in our system. That's $20 million. What if their were some way for big governmentally contracted organizations to run prisons (regulated by laws of course). Do you think that would work? I'm not advocating the death penalty either. I'm just offering opposition to arguements.

Privately-run prisons are certainly a bad thing. They exploit their inmates, resulting in massive reconviction rates on their release, due to the utter lack of respect for authority they breed. They have them in areas of Scotland and the crime rates surrounding them are much higher than comparable areas.

Do note however, that that is $20 million over the entirety of the sentence, not paid in a lump sum.

Privately-run prisons are certainly a bad thing. They exploit their inmates, resulting in massive reconviction rates on their release, due to the utter lack of respect for authority they breed. They have them in areas of Scotland and the crime rates surrounding them are much higher than comparable areas.

Do note however, that that is $20 million over the entirety of the sentence, not paid in a lump sum.
I was just checking on the privatization. I'd never looked into the possibility of it. Are those private prisons closely regulated by a bureau though?

It is over the entirety of the sentence, but there are also a lot more than 40 of these criminals in the system.

Also note that capital punishment costs the US government between $1 million and $7 million per case, as opposed to the average life sentence cost of $500,000.

Your numbers are horribly wrong. Your saying that it only costs $12,500 a year to keep an inmate alive? Get real. On average, LWOP for murder averages 40 years (VERY conservative, almost 50 years). And according to your wishes that they be in a max. security prison, which average $75,000 dollars a year per inmate, we come to the real total of $3,000,000, keep in mind were not including health care, provided by yours truly, the taxpayers, physical damage they may do to other inmates (LWOP inmates contribute 74% of prison violence, according to TIME), and most tragic, acts of violence and maybe even murder they commit, maybe even on a security guard or other faculty. And DP cases average only 1.5million dollars, the higher ones are due to last minute delay appeals that suck tax payers money right from the purse.

Capital punishment does not have any sense of purpose. Michael Ross clearly understood that he had done wrong, which is the first step of rehabilitation. Once a man no longer poses a threat to society, do we still have the necessity or right to execute him?

Surely the purpose of 'punishment' is to rehabilitate offenders, rather that just to allow the state to sanction murder.


Capital punishment has been shown to increase violent crime:

New York, 1907-1964: In the months that followed an execution, the murder rate increased by two. This is averaged over the 57-year period.

Also note California, who, in 1968-1991 (in which no executions took place), had a murder rate that was half that of the period 1952-1967, in which the state averaged 6 executions a year.

Also note that capital punishment costs the US government between $1 million and $7 million per case, as opposed to the average life sentence cost of $500,000.

Or maybe the independant factor is the crime rate and the dependant factor is the amount of executions.

Vanikoro, apologies for directing you to another off-site resource, but the statistics are too vast too quote in their entirety:

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

Please do actually read it, as it contains a whole load of relevant statistics.

Last minute appeals? You can't possibly be advocating that appeals should be abolished and remove any possibility that these people may well prove themselves to be innocent?

Roshni, the dependant factor would usually follow the independant factor.

Note:

In the months that followed an execution


Also, it would still indicate a spiral of each factor affecting the other and increasing again and again.


*** EDIT ***

And for those who want them, I revised my costs based on a study conducted for a Master's Thesis (found on off-site link cited above). Note also that this is based on LA County.

Revised Costs:

Average total for capital punishment: $2,087,926.

Average total for life imprisonment: $1,448,935 (approx. 31% less)

Vanikoro, apologies for directing you to another off-site resource, but the statistics are too vast too quote in their entirety:

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

Please do actually read it, as it contains a whole load of relevant statistics.

Last minute appeals? You can't possibly be advocating that appeals should be abolished and remove any possibility that these people may well prove themselves to be innocent?

The sites statistics are questionable, and when I wanted to go and investigate the source, I had to pay to read the article the statistics were based on. You led me right into a page of 'facts' with no source I can view and disect.

Your also going with the common anti-DP assumption that people up for LWOP will 'give up', and wont apeal just as much and someone up for the DP. There are long and arduous appeals for LWOP aswell, which can equal DP appeals.

So what are you guys suggesting should be done? Both of you have offered your arguements, but haven't really made any suggestions.

Your also going with the common anti-DP assumption that people up for LWOP will 'give up', and wont apeal just as much and someone up for the DP. There are long and arduous appeals for LWOP aswell, which can equal DP appeals.

You seem to be forgetting that capital cases, under your constitution, must have two separate trials in order to determine both whether the defendant is guilty as well as whether the case is capital or not.

This is before the difficult procedure of checking juries to ensure a fair trial (90% of capital convictions fall on cases with white victims, while only 50% of capital cases have white victims).

Also, there are considerably more appeals in capital cases than in LWOP cases and you know there are. Don't waste your time arguing hypothetical circumstances.

I believe in rehabilitation for lesser crimes, especially drugs-related crimes which often lead to conviction in offenders if their addictions are not treated. I believe that prisoners should be working for themselves in prison, achieving the basic levels of literacy and numeracy that are necessary to function in society. If a man can't get a job, what option has he got but to turn to crime? Regardless of the failure to meet targets of literacy and numeracy in British prisons, key education classes are still being cut.

I am opposed to the death penalty in all forms and for any reason. I believe it is counter-productive and inherently immoral and unjust.

How can a state tell its population that violent crime is wrong by carrying out that very same action?

No, I don't believe the state has any right to murder any individual. A man who understands what he has done and who is no longer a threat to society does not need to be murder in the way you advocate.

WHAT?!?!?!?! By that logic, all I have to do is say "sorry"? :p

It's not murder. It's an equal response. He killed EIGHT people. I only wish he could be forcibly soddomized and killed 8 times to make everything "square" with his victims.

I'll assume you haven't read Proposition 36. I was discussing the benefits of rehabilitation in general here. Proposition 36 is drugs-based.

California laws don't work for California! Why should I give it the least bit creedence? OJ, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake... :rolleyes:

Seeing your confidence, would you like to divulge these numbers?

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,555972,00.html
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/cri/2002/pd032502c.html

...yet NY has had the death penalty since 1995. http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/41790

...so: While many issues midigate crime, the death penalty does as well. And NYC's crime rates have been dropping for 14 years, almost across the board.


My factor can be seen to be just as relevant as yours. You can hardly argue one is more correct than the other.

**Edit** Sorry, just found what I was looking for.

"Crime right *now* is down" - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168

Didn't say it was less relevant, just that there are many other factors besides the DP. It follows that areas that are better off see less crime. Thus why Bridgeport, CT had very little crime in the 60s and was in the top 10 homocide per capita cities in 1989.

Thanks.


Then you must be advocating lynching, as it not the costs of the execution itself, but the legal costs for appeals that still don't work (see Leonel Torres Herrera)

Nope. I advocate that the system needs reform to get the innocent OFF death row, and the GUILTY off death row.

how can countries be 'civilised' if they still allow such barbaric acts as execution?

Homogenized European or Canadian independent thought process at work? The goosestep is right around the corner. How sad.

I believe in rehabilitation for lesser crimes, especially drugs-related crimes which often lead to conviction in offenders if their addictions are not treated. I believe that prisoners should be working for themselves in prison, achieving the basic levels of literacy and numeracy that are necessary to function in society. If a man can't get a job, what option has he got but to turn to crime? Regardless of the failure to meet targets of literacy and numeracy in British prisons, key education classes are still being cut.

That's fine for lesser crimes. I could care less about the guy who tried to smuggle a couple of keys of coke. But octuple homicide/rape? Hang the bastard.

I am opposed to the death penalty in all forms and for any reason. I believe it is counter-productive and inherently immoral and unjust.

How can a state tell its population that violent crime is wrong by carrying out that very same action?

Because it's the only deterrent to that crime.
Did you listen to your parents out of love or fear when they told you to not play with matches?

You seem to be forgetting that capital cases, under your constitution, must have two separate trials in order to determine both whether the defendant is guilty as well as whether the case is capital or not.

This is before the difficult procedure of checking juries to ensure a fair trial (90% of capital convictions fall on cases with white victims, while only 50% of capital cases have white victims).

Also, there are considerably more appeals in capital cases than in LWOP cases and you know there are. Don't waste your time arguing hypothetical circumstances.

And dont you be naive in saying that it only costs a dime and a pack of gum to keep these people alive. It costs termendous amounts of money to house someone in jail for LIFE, which could be 60+ years. Your also not factoring in the price of a life, of a faculty member, or if he escapes/released, the public. Dont be sucked in thinking that there going to sit quietly looking out the barred window for the rest of thier life. Also on note, dont bring up racism and race statistics, because it really is not a factor. The Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics says quote,

"I don't find evidence that the justice system is treating blacks and whites differently."

I think its clear what I propose we do. If there going to be kept alive and eating away my tax dollars, they better at least be productive and maybe some instances be forced into labor.

How can you also put a price on safety and closure? No money can bring back the thousands of citizens murdered each year by inmates on parole.

I think that murderers, rapists, child molesters (and anyone else who commits evil or heinous acts which I may have missed from my list) should be executed.

As far as I am concerned they relinquished their right to be treated in a civilised manner as soon as they committed their crime.

'Civilised' doesn't come into it when dealing with these people as they themselves are not 'civilised'.

I don't have any preference about how they die - just so long as they do!

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,555972,00.html
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/cri/2002/pd032502c.html

...yet NY has had the death penalty since 1995. http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/41790

...so: While many issues midigate crime, the death penalty does as well. And NYC's crime rates have been dropping for 14 years, almost across the board.

Sorry, but those stats do absolutely nothing to refute my earlier statement regarding New York.


Nope. I advocate that the system needs reform to get the innocent OFF death row, and the GUILTY off death row.

Oh, sounds like a nice idea. Care to elaborate on the 'how'?

The Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics says quote,

"I don't find evidence that the justice system is treating blacks and whites differently."

Oh, they do? You were really expecting "I find evidence that ethnic minorities are persecuted in the law courts and that the predominantly wealthy, white judges could care less if they die."

I somewhat doubt The Dept. wanted another LA riots incident, if you ask me.


How can you also put a price on safety and closure? No money can bring back the thousands of citizens murdered each year by inmates on parole.

Seeing as this topic isn't just US-based, I'm going to open it up now. In the UK I have never heard of an inmate on parole committing murder.

The percentage of the UK prison populace that have committed serious enough crimes to qualify for CP (under the US criteria) is 1%. Now consider that not all of them would actually recieve this punishment.

How much money do we really stand to save anyway?

Oh, they do? You were really expecting "I find evidence that ethnic minorities are persecuted in the law courts and that the predominantly wealthy, white judges could care less if they die."

I somewhat doubt The Dept. wanted another LA riots incident, if you ask me.




Seeing as this topic isn't just US-based, I'm going to open it up now. In the UK I have never heard of an inmate on parole committing murder.

The percentage of the UK prison populace that have committed serious enough crimes to qualify for CP (under the US criteria) is 1%. Now consider that not all of them would actually recieve this punishment.

How much money do we really stand to save anyway?

We aren't just talking murder though, are we?

Wasn't there a case just recently here about a guy getting out (dunno if he was on parole or released after rehab) and killing someone within days? Sorry, am a bit hazy on the details - just have a vague memory of seeing this on the news a few months back.

If he had been executed after his original crime (murder I think) he wouldnt have been able to commit the second one.

It wouldnt be in the unbiased Dept. of Statistics disadvantage to say that they detected racial favor in the courts.

And a lot of UK statistics mumbo-jumbo sounds real good, until you put it into per-capita and parole right/freedoms. And I thought we were discussing American CP considering you have been giving me only American (mostly LA) sources.

And I dont know how much well save? Ill ask you what you think the cash value of an innocent human life is, one who is killed by a paroled inmate?

And I dont know how much well save? Ill ask you what you think the cash value of an innocent human life is, one who is killed by a paroled inmate?

And in the same vein, an innocent killed by the state when appeals fail?

No, I don't believe the state has any right to murder any individual.
It's only "murder" if the accused is innocent.

We have self-defense laws that allow us to kill those who try to kill or harm us. Why shouldn't society be allowed to kill those who try to "kill" or "harm" society through heinous crimes?

It's only "murder" if the accused is innocent.

And there's no system that can guarantee 100% that all people sentenced under CP are guilty. Therefore, CP is ineffective and should be thrown out because even one mistake in the system is too many when dealing with someone's life.

And in the same vein, an innocent killed by the state when appeals fail?

Because we should accept risks. Your drive a car, even though your chances of dying in a car accident are monolitically higher than being tried wrongfully (which has never been totally proven that it has happened yet), you still drive. I cant think of a lower statistic than being tried wrongfully for the DP. You have to out-weigh the disadvantages knowing that it will reduce crime, bring closure, and prevent anymore unfortunate loss of life.

And there's no system that can guarantee 100% that all people sentenced under CP are guilty. Therefore, CP is ineffective and should be thrown out because even one mistake in the system is too many when dealing with someone's life.
That's why I proposed my "prison island" scenario as an alternative to CP in the "Alternatives to Death Penalty" thread.

And there's no system that can guarantee 100% that all people sentenced under CP are guilty. Therefore, CP is ineffective and should be thrown out because even one mistake in the system is too many when dealing with someone's life.

Well then the parole system should be thrown out because of the thousands of innocents killed by parolers. Or becuase of 1 inmate death, we should never allow inmates to communicate, or becuase 1 prison faculty member dies, we should have the fail run by robots where they never come in contact with another human. Get real.

There was a young man recently executed here in Virginia for killing a state trooper.

The whole thing was on video - he opened fire without any warning on the unsuspecting trooper. He then proceeded to shoot him repeatedly on the ground.

Before dying the trooper managed a bit of return fire which wounded the man. Blood matching by DNA was found at the scene.

The gun used by the suspect was matched to the bullets that killed the trooper, and his prints were all over the gun.

I had no trouble with his execution. There ARE some times when the evidence is 100% - more times than you realize.

Sorry, but those stats do absolutely nothing to refute my earlier statement regarding New York.

Um... they *are* what you asked for. No, I'm not going to find a study you didn't even provide a link for and then truncate the data set to not include the Great Depression. Either take the actual stuff (which proves my arguement), or

Oh, sounds like a nice idea. Care to elaborate on the 'how'?

If they've been proven guilty (and remember, to get to death row that's at least twice), and there is NO question of guilt, hang them (read: there were eye witnesses, DNA, etc). If there is a doubt, get them off of Death Row, revisit the case, and see if it is possible to acquit. If not, life in prison it is.
IMHO, there should never be anyone on death row for more than a year.

And there's no system that can guarantee 100% that all people sentenced under CP are guilty. Therefore, CP is ineffective and should be thrown out because even one mistake in the system is too many when dealing with someone's life.

It always serves as an example of what happens if you break the law. Or even don't. I'd rather have a little fear out there instead of the current "I'm a vicitim" culture of lawsuits that we have today.

That sounds a lot like you're advocating the killings of innocents to instil a fear culture.

I'm so glad I live abroad with no death penalty and (Guess what!) considerably lower murder rates.

And Im happy to live in a land where I can own a fire-arm and protect myself and my family if need be, not a radical country whose oppresive laws are responsible for a 10% increase in violent crimes. Also, when you add in per-capita and fire-arm freedoms, your statistics is worth nothing.

That sounds a lot like you're advocating the killings of innocents to instil a fear culture.

I'm so glad I live abroad with no death penalty and (Guess what!) considerably lower murder rates.

If there is no fear of the law, then there is no law.

London per capita is actually on par or higher than NYC per capita.

well i guess dats how, i mean cumon dudes n dudettes let ppl do wat dey wnt in der own cuntries, who r we 2 challenge wats der concept of right, i mean wat we mite thnk 2 b obviously right might jes turn out 2 b totally unacceptable 2 sum1 els.

well i guess dats how, i mean cumon dudes n dudettes let ppl do wat dey wnt in der own cuntries, who r we 2 challenge wats der concept of right, i mean wat we mite thnk 2 b obviously right might jes turn out 2 b totally unacceptable 2 sum1 els.
The law is what we think is right. We must enforce it otherwise society breaks down. Law is the only way to control society, and law must be applied to all groups fairly.