Should the Death-Penalty be Eliminated from the World? - General

Sorry but what? Are you saying diversity causes crime? That's absurd If anything you might have an argument from our huge inequality and poverty rate Anyway, recidivism rates are a percentage of prison population, not a total number, so a higher base prison population wouldn't affect the data. However, our country providing environments more conducive to crime would. But considering our prison system is notably harsher and crueler there's no way that doesn't factor in to it. Besides, if capital punishment worked as a deterrent like you previously stated, wouldn't our recidivism rate have evened out? Obviously if it is a deterrent it's not a very effective one

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;44382383]Sorry but what? Are you saying diversity causes crime? That's absurd[/quote] You're right, the racial cliques in prisons and ethnic based gangs just for shits and giggles, regardless, you inferred that from what I said. However, racial and ethnic minorities make up for over 60% of many of the prison populations, and over 85% in some California prisons. So there's that. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;44382383] Anyway, recidivism rates are a percentage of prison population, not a total number, so a higher base prison population wouldn't affect the data.[/quote] I'm aware, what I was saying, is that the people who succeed in rehabilitation in other countries, would be likely to succeed in ours too. Where the recidivist criminals most likely wouldn't rehabilitate in other countries, as they don't here. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;44382383] Our country providing environments more conducive to crime would. But considering our prison system is notably harsher and crueler there's no way that doesn't factor in to it. [/quote] Our country most definitely provides and avenue and environment for crime, unfortunately. But it could be argued that the harsher justice system doesn't counteract this as our previously agreed on notion that it's more of a status symbol to have "done time", thanks to the criminal environment. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;44382383] Besides, if capital punishment worked as a deterrent like you previously stated, wouldn't our recidivism rate have evened out? Obviously if it is a deterrent it's not a very effective one[/QUOTE] Statistics rarely even out, especially when you factor in the ever changing topic of crime, the people who commit it, crime trends, and having different crime demographics from practically every city. I never stated it was a deterrent, nor an effective one, but if I were to tell you drinking soda was a capital punishment, and for you to drink soda next time without thinking of the repercussions, is highly unlikely. I'm not saying it solves, fixes, or is more effective than anything else, but if you take away the death penalty, you take away that notion of "man, I could be killed for this", which to some (especially those who have been to prison), is worse a punishment than going back to get more "street cred"

[QUOTE=007SILVERTOE;44382662]You're right, the racial cliques in prisons and ethnic based gangs just for shits and giggles, regardless, you inferred that from what I said. However, racial and ethnic minorities make up for over 60% of many of the prison populations, and over 85% in some California prisons. So there's that.[/QUOTE] so you're saying we have more crime because we have more minorities? [QUOTE=007SILVERTOE;44382662]I'm aware, what I was saying, is that the people who succeed in rehabilitation in other countries, would be likely to succeed in ours too. Where the recidivist criminals most likely wouldn't rehabilitate in other countries, as they don't here.[/QUOTE] And if our systems were equally effective we'd have the same proportion of both. [QUOTE=007SILVERTOE;44382662]if I were to tell you drinking soda was a capital punishment, and for you to drink soda next time without thinking of the repercussions, is highly unlikely. I'm not saying it solves, fixes, or is more effective than anything else, but if you take away the death penalty, you take away that notion of "man, I could be killed for this", which to some (especially those who have been to prison), is worse a punishment than going back to get more "street cred"[/QUOTE] Erm, a compulsory regular act like drinking soda is way different from something like murder which, to sane people, is almost always mediated and though out. And they don't consider life in jail a cakewalk regardless of what you think. What good is street cred if you're in jail for life / decades? You yourself said "some would argue they'd rather have been executed than to spend 50 years in jail" and now you're treating the American prison system like it's a slap on the wrist.

[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;44357170]Thing is, death is a release. People are more inclined to murder when they're gonna die after a year than after living all their life in prison, [b]and its silly to assume that the death penalty actually does anything but satisfy a revenge fantasy[/b]. Also, considering the [b]average murder rate is much higher in states with the death penalty than without[/b], I feel that it would be a good idea overall to remove the death penalty. source: [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state[/url][/QUOTE] 1. It goes a lot further than revenge. It puts government money towards more important things than providing housing, legal costs, food, etc. for someone who took a life. 2. That's the exact reason why there is a death penalty in those states...

[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44383539]1. It goes a lot further than revenge. It puts government money towards more important things than providing housing, legal costs, food, etc. for someone who took a life.[/QUOTE] Once again, capital punishment costs more to maintain than keeping someone in prison for life.

[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44383539]1. It goes a lot further than revenge. It puts government money towards more important things than providing housing, legal costs, food, etc. for someone who took a life. 2. That's the exact reason why there is a death penalty in those states...[/QUOTE] 1. Yeah, it puts fundamentally way more money into the prison system as we need to be able to prove beyond any shadow of any doubt who was guilty. Even today, this is hard. But, why should we bother right? If you look guilty, you are, right? So kill them? Yeah, this is how many, many innocents have died and even one is just too much. 2. Really? Care to cite this? Because a lot of people and researchers disagree with you on that point. [editline]28th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=007SILVERTOE;44381979]There's no way to evaluate the effectiveness on capital punishment as a deterrent as there's no reliable way to measure it. Does rehabilitation work better on drug offenders than jail? Well sure, but we're talking about capital punishment, not punishment in general (i.e. jail). Regardless, it works "better" but the margin is to statistically insignificant to suggest abandoning what we have now.[/QUOTE] As a deterrent we can never know if it has any effect at all, but from a psychological perspective I think it's more than possible to surmise at least the statistical chances of it having an effect. If a murder is committed under passion, it more than likely wouldn't have been deterred, it was a crime of passion so logical thought and risk analysis wasn't done, so it had no detterent effect. If the murder was pre meditated, it's assumed the person thought they could get away with it, and if they think they can get away with it, risking their life when they think they don't actually have that risk is probably not going to be a great deterrent. I just don't see it actually doing a lot. It should be of note that I don't know if rehabiliation can even help these people, but I can't say I'm for killing them at any rate, even if it's more efficient or whatever. [QUOTE]Exactly, doing a "dime" is a status symbol now-a-days. So if you have this, and the same convicts not giving a rats ass about rehabilitation, then what's left? Life in prison (status symbol) or Capital punishment.[/QUOTE] It has been a status symbol in gangs and crime for over 30 years. Clearly there is nothing about deterrence that helps stop crimes from people who are too impoverished to care about it. If there was, the last 30 years of history wouldn't have happened. If punishment as a system worked, then the american system would not be what it clearly is today. a failure. [QUOTE]The issue I have with this, is innocent people go to prison all the time, eventually to be released, this is a problem with the court systems discretion and plea bargaining methods. If more time was spent in trial court to without a doubt convict a felon, it shouldn't matter in the first place. An appeal when new evidence comes to light, great, but 8 appeals because they just want to try and work the system in getting out after they knowingly committed a capital crime, is bs.[/QUOTE] Removing appeals from inmates is just a flat out bad idea. Yeah, you know what, it does cost money. But it's something worth having money spent on. Innocents don't always get released from jail. Innocents don't always survive jail. Irreparable damage is done to the falsely imprisoned people. The very idea we should remove appeals until evidence comes to light is wrong. Evidence doesn't just "come" to light. It needs to be found, shut cases aren't usually re investigated, they aren't usually re opened just because. They're re opened by the appeals. [QUOTE]I didn't say any faster, nor that it solves the problem of prison population, but it does remove an individual that was part of it before, and if same individual has complete disregard for the system to begin with (given that they were rightfully convicted), and because rehabilitation on violent crime is crap, why not?[/QUOTE] Clear cutting every criminal/convict guilty of violent crimes as impossible to fix/as a crap shoot to fix is pretty bad. It's a generalization and it's unfounded.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44383963]1. Yeah, it puts fundamentally way more money into the prison system as we need to be able to prove beyond any shadow of any doubt who was guilty. Even today, this is hard. But, why should we bother right? If you look guilty, you are, right? So kill them? Yeah, this is how many, many innocents have died and even one is just too much. 2. Really? Care to cite this? Because a lot of people and researchers disagree with you on that point.[/QUOTE] Take out all the legal bull and it no longer costs so much money. Furthermore, I'm not talking about the judge slamming the hammer and taking the defendant into another room and immediately executing him. There should be something like a grace period allowing anyone to bring a reasonable amount of evidence to maybe have a retrial. Also, I'm fairly certain a state having a higher murder rate has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty. If you can somehow provide an argument that the death penalty actually creates more murder within a state, go for it.

[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44384272]Take out all the legal bull and it no longer costs so much money. Furthermore, I'm not talking about the judge slamming the hammer and taking the defendant into another room and immediately executing him. There should be something like a grace period allowing anyone to bring a reasonable amount of evidence to maybe have a retrial. Also, I'm fairly certain a state having a higher murder rate has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty. If you can somehow provide an argument that the death penalty actually creates more murder within a state, go for it.[/QUOTE] Uh, doing that is what kills innocents. You have such a hardon for killing killers, you'll advocate the government becomes nothing more than wanton murderers killing anyone suspected of murder? The legal "bull" as you call it is THE ONLY THING that prevents the death of innocents. Yes, I can actually. An action is sanctioned by the government, but claimed as evil on the otherhand, but the government still caries it out, and does so with pride and right in peoples faces whilst telling them if they do it, they're evil. This cannot be a message that helps anyone out in my opinion. Shouldn't you be saying the states with the death penalty should have lower rates? Shouldn't it as a deterrent be doing SOMETHING? But you'll say it's work in the absence of any evidence?

[QUOTE=Sypto;44347163]Since 1973, over 143 INNOCENT civilians have been slaughtered by the death penalty.[/QUOTE] This could really be an argument in favor of the death penalty. That's a very meager number when you take all things into consideration. With the advancement of technology since then, this number would be even lower. Regardless, 143 people in the time span of 41 years is pretty damn low. I'm not saying it's not a terrible thing. I think it's sad, really. But realistically, this number would be much lower in today's standards.

[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44384296]This could really be an argument in favor of the death penalty. That's a very meager number when you take all things into consideration. With the advancement of technology since then, this number would be even lower. Regardless, 143 people in the time span of 41 years is pretty damn low. I'm not saying it's not a terrible thing. I think it's sad, really. But realistically, this number would be much lower in today's standards.[/QUOTE] So human life has almost no value to you I guess by that description. One innocent dying to the death penalty is too much.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44384295]Uh, doing that is what kills innocents. You have such a hardon for killing killers, you'll advocate the government becomes nothing more than wanton murderers killing anyone suspected of murder? The legal "bull" as you call it is THE ONLY THING that prevents the death of innocents. Yes, I can actually. An action is sanctioned by the government, but claimed as evil on the otherhand, but the government still caries it out, and does so with pride and right in peoples faces whilst telling them if they do it, they're evil. This cannot be a message that helps anyone out in my opinion. Shouldn't you be saying the states with the death penalty should have lower rates? Shouldn't it as a deterrent be doing SOMETHING? But you'll say it's work in the absence of any evidence?[/QUOTE] The death penalty may not be an effective deterrent, but nothing is. Murder is almost always heat of the moment, and even in premeditated murder, there's really not much anybody can do to stop it. I don't think anybody kills simply because the government does. [editline]28th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44384331]So human life has almost no value to you I guess by that description. One innocent dying to the death penalty is too much.[/QUOTE] No, I value human life very much. But I also value government efficiency and not spending my money on keeping murderers happy. I even said I think it's sad. Unfortunately, it happens.

[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44384347]The death penalty may not be an effective deterrent, but nothing is. Murder is almost always heat of the moment, and even in premeditated murder, there's really not much anybody can do to stop it. I don't think anybody kills simply because the government does.[/QUOTE] So what does killing them do? How does it improve the situation? We've already removed the threat. Why kill it? What purpose does it serve if even an advocate for state sanctioned murder is able to admit it isn't a deterrent? To someone like myself, it looks like bloodlust, retribution, eye for an eye, violent thinking. It doesn't look like logical thought as to how to solve a problem.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44384406]So what does killing them do? How does it improve the situation? We've already removed the threat. Why kill it? What purpose does it serve if even an advocate for state sanctioned murder is able to admit it isn't a deterrent? To someone like myself, it looks like bloodlust, retribution, eye for an eye, violent thinking. It doesn't look like logical thought as to how to solve a problem.[/QUOTE] It's simply cheaper to execute them than to keep them alive until they die. Plus it solves that overcrowding issue. I dunno how bad that is, but some guy mentioned it earlier.

No it isn't. It's only cheaper if you don't give a shit about innocent life. If we do things your way, that 143 deaths in 40 years would be astronomically higher. It doesn't solve overcrowding at all, and you don't even know why or how it would. It's pathetic to suggest an arguement you yourself don't understand. It doesn't do jack shit for overcrowding unless we just start killing everyone who goes to jail basically. You know what solves over crowding? Release non violent drug offenders. Nationalize the prisons again so that private jails don't make money on every head they have in their jail, lobbying for laws to be harsher to get more people in their walls and make more money off of them.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44384471]No it isn't. It's only cheaper if you don't give a shit about innocent life. If we do things your way, that 143 deaths in 40 years would be astronomically higher. It doesn't solve overcrowding at all, and you don't even know why or how it would. It's pathetic to suggest an arguement you yourself don't understand. It doesn't do jack shit for overcrowding unless we just start killing everyone who goes to jail basically. You know what solves over crowding? Release non violent drug offenders. Nationalize the prisons again so that private jails don't make money on every head they have in their jail, lobbying for laws to be harsher to get more people in their walls and make more money off of them.[/QUOTE] First of all, I was suggesting the possibility. I hardly see how that's "pathetic." I can see how you thought I was actually using that as an argument, but I did not mean it that way. Second of all, there can [i]still[/i] be investigation and whatnot after the sentencing. It doesn't have to end. It just shouldn't go on for years and years and years. I think anything and everything should be done to ensure that the convicted is truly guilty. I just don't believe in appealing to the courts as a way to avoid the death penalty rather than to provide evidence as to why you're not guilty. This is generally the case. It's not that they have actual evidence to prove the defendant could be innocent. It's that they have a bunch of cheap shots they can throw at the courts to prolong the execution.

So in the cases where evidence didn't get re evaluated til 20 years later and the person's just about to die on death row, too bad, so sad, that innocent gets to die and the real killer forever walks free? Nope. Bad idea. No, that's not true, and even if it was true, removing the chance for that happening removes the chances of actual innocents being saved. Is innocent life worth losing because of the death penalty? If you were wrongly sentenced to death row and your appeal time ran out due to no new evidence coming up, would you be okay with your own death being wrongfully handed to you?

First I wanna say: I'm new to the community, and I feel so popular in the debate section. Second I wanna lay this on the table: "1198 Lethal Injection 35 states plus the US government use lethal injection as their primary method. Some states utilizing lethal injection have other methods available as backups. Though New Mexico, Connecticut, and Maryland have abolished the death penalty, their laws were not retroactive, leaving prisoners on the states’ death rows and their lethal injection protocols intact. 158 Electrocution 11 Gas Chamber 3 Hanging 3 Firing Squad" ^ That up there shows how shameless the Government can be. So whilst the people that enjoy the people on Death Row being killed, you're letting the states man gather all of your tax money. Without having to waste a dime on rehabilitation. Which I am not suggesting, but! Are the people that think the death penalty is okay & Politicians any better than the murderer? Something to think about... Source: [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44384686]So in the cases where evidence didn't get re evaluated til 20 years later and the person's just about to die on death row, too bad, so sad, that innocent gets to die and the real killer forever walks free? Nope. Bad idea. No, that's not true, and even if it was true, removing the chance for that happening removes the chances of actual innocents being saved. Is innocent life worth losing because of the death penalty? If you were wrongly sentenced to death row and your appeal time ran out due to no new evidence coming up, would you be okay with your own death being wrongfully handed to you?[/QUOTE] Having a person on death row for twenty years is stupid. That would almost defeat the whole purpose of the death penalty. And no, it is true. Defendants use their appeals to prolong their death sentence most of the time, without any rational reason to suggest they are innocent. It's a legal loophole in ways. A few innocents dying each year to ensure a better life for the 313 MILLION people in the country seems pretty reasonable to me. Do I remorse for the three people that were wrongly executed and their families? Of course I do. To answer that last question, I don't put myself in a situation where I could be wrongly accused. Furthermore, if there's no new evidence coming up, I probably did murder someone. You make this sound like there are tens of thousands of inmates on death row that didn't kill anyone...

[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44395610]Having a person on death row for twenty years is stupid. That would almost defeat the whole purpose of the death penalty. And no, it is true. Defendants use their appeals to prolong their death sentence most of the time, without any rational reason to suggest they are innocent. It's a legal loophole in ways. A few innocents dying each year to ensure a better life for the 313 MILLION people in the country seems pretty reasonable to me. Do I remorse for the three people that were wrongly executed and their families? Of course I do. To answer that last question, I don't put myself in a situation where I could be wrongly accused. Furthermore, if there's no new evidence coming up, I probably did murder someone. You make this sound like there are tens of thousands of inmates on death row that didn't kill anyone...[/QUOTE] So just so I get this clear, you are okay with as many innocents dying as may happen in the pursuit of vengeance? To me, you sound like an actual psychopath who has no ability to have empathy. You have not presented any reasoning as to why the death of innocents is worth it. I would say suggesting that innocents death is justified is a ridiculous thing especially when you have no reasoning for it. The simple murder of killers is not a good enough reason to justify the death of total innocents. No, I don't make it seem like that. What I make it seem like is that even one innocent dying for the sake of killing killers is not worth it and there is clearly no reason to do so, or advocate for it. It's bad enough when people simply want the death penalty, but most people are able to offer some kind of argument as to why they would at least TRY to stop the deaths of innocents. You're openly saying if it happens, it's not really all that bad because eventually, we'll kill the RIGHT person. Do you know how absolutely abhorrent that is?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44396751]So just so I get this clear, you are okay with as many innocents dying as may happen in the pursuit of vengeance? To me, you sound like an actual psychopath who has no ability to have empathy. You have not presented any reasoning as to why the death of innocents is worth it. I would say suggesting that innocents death is justified is a ridiculous thing especially when you have no reasoning for it. The simple murder of killers is not a good enough reason to justify the death of total innocents. No, I don't make it seem like that. What I make it seem like is that even one innocent dying for the sake of killing killers is not worth it and there is clearly no reason to do so, or advocate for it. It's bad enough when people simply want the death penalty, but most people are able to offer some kind of argument as to why they would at least TRY to stop the deaths of innocents. You're openly saying if it happens, it's not really all that bad because eventually, we'll kill the RIGHT person. Do you know how absolutely abhorrent that is?[/QUOTE] No, and no. I am not okay with a bunch of innocent people dying in the pursuit of BETTER USED TAXES - not vengeance. There's a limit to when it becomes totally unacceptable. You may think "one is too much" but I don't. That doesn't mean I'm a psychopath. Maybe you think my morals are twisted, but saying I'm a psychopath is definitely an overstatement. I have empathy. I have a lot more empathy than you know. Don't make personal attacks. Again, the obvious pro to using the death penalty is better use of taxpayer money. How much money would actually be saved is unknown, and MIGHT not be worth it. I'll see what I can do as far as estimating the amount of money that could be saved. Just don't have the time at the moment. But THAT is why I support it. I never said anything about it being okay because we get the right person eventually. An innocent still died. Getting the right person doesn't make things much better.

[QUOTE=ChickenLegGuy;44373544]It should stay, keeping someone for a whole life in prison is just gonna waste jail cells and it will be a painful death, even if it's a criminal.[/QUOTE] but its statistically cheaper to keep them in the cell their life, and provide care for them, than it is to go through the process to kill them, and they often live very isolated lives anyways. also theres the glaring racial disparity in how the death penalty is applied. at least in the U.S., if you're a minority, you are 97% more likely to recieve a death penalty for a crime that a white defender would get a life sentence for.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44384471]No it isn't. It's only cheaper if you don't give a shit about innocent life. If we do things your way, that 143 deaths in 40 years would be astronomically higher. It doesn't solve overcrowding at all, and you don't even know why or how it would. It's pathetic to suggest an arguement you yourself don't understand. It doesn't do jack shit for overcrowding unless we just start killing everyone who goes to jail basically. You know what solves over crowding?[B] Release non violent drug offenders. Nationalize the prisons again so that private jails don't make money on every head they have in their jail, lobbying for laws to be harsher to get more people in their walls and make more money off of them.[/B][/QUOTE] This, exactly. The "War on Drugs" is a sick joke. And while I do believe some folks should be locked away from society for the rest of their lives, there wouldn't be a need to kill them for "economic" reasoning if we didn't stuff people into our jails for non-violent, drug related offenses. I say "our" jails, but like HumanAbyss said, they're not ours. They're privately owned and used to make money, which is again, a sick joke. Another form of the military-industrial complex that creates profit for a few at the expense of others' lives and freedom.

[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44409903]No, and no. I am not okay with a bunch of innocent people dying in the pursuit of BETTER USED TAXES - not vengeance. There's a limit to when it becomes totally unacceptable. You may think "one is too much" but I don't. That doesn't mean I'm a psychopath. Maybe you think my morals are twisted, but saying I'm a psychopath is definitely an overstatement. I have empathy. I have a lot more empathy than you know. Don't make personal attacks. Again, the obvious pro to using the death penalty is better use of taxpayer money. How much money would actually be saved is unknown, and MIGHT not be worth it. I'll see what I can do as far as estimating the amount of money that could be saved. Just don't have the time at the moment. But THAT is why I support it. I never said anything about it being okay because we get the right person eventually. An innocent still died. Getting the right person doesn't make things much better.[/QUOTE] But you don't have empathy if you can't see why a single person dying so slightly less money is used is fucking psychopathic [editline]31st March 2014[/editline] it's even worse to state you want to save money by killing people when killing people won't actually save you a dime.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44412013]But you don't have empathy if you can't see why a single person dying so slightly less money is used is fucking psychopathic [editline]31st March 2014[/editline] it's even worse to state you want to save money by killing people when killing people won't actually save you a dime.[/QUOTE] I have empathy. Just not as much as you, apparently. I never stated that specifically. I said it MIGHT not be worth it. I just haven't done enough research into it. My argument is assuming a significant amount of money is being saved by using the death penalty. [editline]1st April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=outlawpickle;44411038]This, exactly. The "War on Drugs" is a sick joke. And while I do believe some folks should be locked away from society for the rest of their lives, there wouldn't be a need to kill them for "economic" reasoning if we didn't stuff people into our jails for non-violent, drug related offenses. I say "our" jails, but like HumanAbyss said, they're not ours. They're privately owned and used to make money, which is again, a sick joke. Another form of the military-industrial complex that creates profit for a few at the expense of others' lives and freedom.[/QUOTE] I actually agree. This is a very good point.

[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44422189]I have empathy. Just not as much as you, apparently. I never stated that specifically. I said it MIGHT not be worth it. I just haven't done enough research into it. My argument is assuming a significant amount of money is being saved by using the death penalty. [editline]1st April 2014[/editline] I actually agree. This is a very good point.[/QUOTE] 1) The death penalty is more expensive. Fact. 2) The death penalties primary cost comes from the court costs and legal costs to ensure that you are in fact killing the right person. You're saying that the biggest benefit of the death penalty is it's ability to lower the cost in the justice system. This is false. Your biggest problem with the death penalty is that it's not fast enough and not cheap enough. The result is that innocents will die, and for nothing. Their deaths will not be to make the system cheaper, faster, more efficient. Their deaths will not solve the crime problems and will not help put the right person away. Their deaths will be entirely in vain and you're saying it's worth it. You're wrong. It will not be worth it. It will not save lives. It will not keep more innocents safe than it costs. Can you even comprehend why? I'll try and explain better than I have already. If an innocent is killed for a crime, then the actual offender will never be arrested most likely, they'll be free to re offend. This is solved by your version of the death penalty how exactly? It doesn't make sense to me why you're so okay with the deaths of innocents and you haven't even taken the time to think of why those deaths are utterly purposeless and could be totally avoided without an excessive or unreasonable cost. Yes, it is a good idea. It's a lot better idea than advocating for the death penalty.

I think the death-penalty should only be availale to those with mental problems. And I don't mean things like Seasonal Affective Disorder or Social Phobia, I mean things like Bipolar disorders. Yes, if you combine many not-so-lethal symptoms, you might get something horrific. People , who do not have mental illness, should not be put to death. They should serve in prison, but they should not be killed. The reason I am saying this is because killers with mental disorders can't control themselves in most cases. Normally, people with mental illness can be trated, they might regain their sanity, but killers are in a much worse condition. You can't help them most of the time. They are just a burden to themselves and society. If they can't be cured, why keep them locked in a prison for the rest of their lives. That would only make them more miserable. You can't let them go, you will just have to keep them locked up for the next 40 or 50 years. Which is exactly why I think the death-penalty should be available to them. I think killing them is the better and cheaper solution to the problem. If you don't think that is the humane thing to do, fine, keep them in a prison or sanatorium. But at least don't let them have any children. That's a big problem where I live. It's not that we don't have enough sanatoriums, it's the fact that the people in them don't do their jobs right. During the night, mentally-ill people just go out and wonder on the street. They are very few and they are not killers, in fact they are harmless. But the problem is that the people, who are supposed to find them, don't actually do it. Instead these people with mental disorders live with their siblings. Not only are they another mouth to feed, they don't work, they are allowed to just go out and do whatever they want and they can have children. And those children are mentally ill too. They become like their mother/father. They too don't work, but they reproduce and bring even more mentally-ill people to this world. Unless they are brought to the proper place, this cycle will continue. Keep in mind, I am not talking about those with minor problems like Hyperactivity Disorder. My point is, the death-penalty should only be used on those with severe mental disorders, those who can't be treated. You can't let them back into society, and keeping someone in prison for life is not only very expensive, but it would make their lives extremely painful.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44424411]1) The death penalty is more expensive. Fact. 2) The death penalties primary cost comes from the court costs and legal costs to ensure that you are in fact killing the right person. You're saying that the biggest benefit of the death penalty is it's ability to lower the cost in the justice system. This is false. Your biggest problem with the death penalty is that it's not fast enough and not cheap enough. The result is that innocents will die, and for nothing. Their deaths will not be to make the system cheaper, faster, more efficient. Their deaths will not solve the crime problems and will not help put the right person away. Their deaths will be entirely in vain and you're saying it's worth it. You're wrong. It will not be worth it. It will not save lives. It will not keep more innocents safe than it costs. Can you even comprehend why? I'll try and explain better than I have already. If an innocent is killed for a crime, then the actual offender will never be arrested most likely, they'll be free to re offend. This is solved by your version of the death penalty how exactly? It doesn't make sense to me why you're so okay with the deaths of innocents and you haven't even taken the time to think of why those deaths are utterly purposeless and could be totally avoided without an excessive or unreasonable cost. Yes, it is a good idea. It's a lot better idea than advocating for the death penalty.[/QUOTE] That's why I'm suggesting we get rid of the unlimited appeals system. If there's substantial evidence to even remotely suggest the person on death row is innocent, then go for it. But a lot of appeals are made simply to delay the execution. That's why it costs so much. I'm all for making sure we get the right person. And yes, I suppose my biggest problem is just that. An astronomically high percentage of the people appealing are in fact guilty, and with all the new forensics equipment and whatnot, it's very difficult to get the wrong guy. Even then, I'm suggesting a system in which further investigation is done before the execution in situations where there could be reasonable doubt (just because a jury says there isn't doesn't make it so). It WILL be worth it if done correctly. Also, most people don't commit murder twice considering it's almost always heat of the moment. I'm not saying that it's justifiable to let that person walk because of this. What I'm saying is that most likely, the real murderer will not be a threat to society. Just because you murder someone, it doesn't make you a psychopath who can't function normally in society all of a sudden. I suppose that's dependent upon why you killed that person in the first place. Did you kill your wife because you caught her fucking another dude? Or did you kill someone because he looked at you wrong? I'm not advocating for the former, but I generally wouldn't call someone who did that a repeating offender. I do think it's wrong to get the wrong person. I'm not suggesting we totally abandon the system and just execute people on the spot if they're found guilty. I'm just saying we tone it down quite a bit, but still make it effective. I agree that more innocents will die. I think that's pretty obvious. I just can't imagine that it would be a significant number to render the death penalty not worth it. It is a great idea. If we did that, it would do a hell of a lot better job than using the death penalty more. Maybe even enough to not have to use the death penalty.

[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44430502]That's why I'm suggesting we get rid of the unlimited appeals system. If there's substantial evidence to even remotely suggest the person on death row is innocent, then go for it. But a lot of appeals are made simply to delay the execution. That's why it costs so much. I'm all for making sure we get the right person. And yes, I suppose my biggest problem is just that. An astronomically high percentage of the people appealing are in fact guilty, and with all the new forensics equipment and whatnot, it's very difficult to get the wrong guy. Even then, I'm suggesting a system in which further investigation is done before the execution in situations where there could be reasonable doubt (just because a jury says there isn't doesn't make it so). It WILL be worth it if done correctly. Also, most people don't commit murder twice considering it's almost always heat of the moment. I'm not saying that it's justifiable to let that person walk because of this. What I'm saying is that most likely, the real murderer will not be a threat to society. Just because you murder someone, it doesn't make you a psychopath who can't function normally in society all of a sudden. I suppose that's dependent upon why you killed that person in the first place. Did you kill your wife because you caught her fucking another dude? Or did you kill someone because he looked at you wrong? I'm not advocating for the former, but I generally wouldn't call someone who did that a repeating offender. I do think it's wrong to get the wrong person. I'm not suggesting we totally abandon the system and just execute people on the spot if they're found guilty. I'm just saying we tone it down quite a bit, but still make it effective. I agree that more innocents will die. I think that's pretty obvious. I just can't imagine that it would be a significant number to render the death penalty not worth it. It is a great idea. If we did that, it would do a hell of a lot better job than using the death penalty more. Maybe even enough to not have to use the death penalty.[/QUOTE] Well if you can fix their crime habits you might as well fix their mental instabilities. This is unfortunately why they cannot be rehabilitated more than you're normal criminal. Mentally unstable criminals are off their meds or aren't getting treatment, and half the time don't consciously know what they're doing, or they're mental instability intices their crime. I understand the argument you're trying to make, but only killing those with mental instabilities would be a political nightmare.

[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44430502]That's why I'm suggesting we get rid of the unlimited appeals system. If there's substantial evidence to even remotely suggest the person on death row is innocent, then go for it. But a lot of appeals are made simply to delay the execution. That's why it costs so much. I'm all for making sure we get the right person. And yes, I suppose my biggest problem is just that. An astronomically high percentage of the people appealing are in fact guilty, and with all the new forensics equipment and whatnot, it's very difficult to get the wrong guy. Even then, I'm suggesting a system in which further investigation is done before the execution in situations where there could be reasonable doubt (just because a jury says there isn't doesn't make it so). It WILL be worth it if done correctly. Also, most people don't commit murder twice considering it's almost always heat of the moment. I'm not saying that it's justifiable to let that person walk because of this. What I'm saying is that most likely, the real murderer will not be a threat to society. Just because you murder someone, it doesn't make you a psychopath who can't function normally in society all of a sudden. I suppose that's dependent upon why you killed that person in the first place. Did you kill your wife because you caught her fucking another dude? Or did you kill someone because he looked at you wrong? I'm not advocating for the former, but I generally wouldn't call someone who did that a repeating offender. I do think it's wrong to get the wrong person. I'm not suggesting we totally abandon the system and just execute people on the spot if they're found guilty. I'm just saying we tone it down quite a bit, but still make it effective. I agree that more innocents will die. I think that's pretty obvious. I just can't imagine that it would be a significant number to render the death penalty not worth it. It is a great idea. If we did that, it would do a hell of a lot better job than using the death penalty more. Maybe even enough to not have to use the death penalty.[/QUOTE] So for you, it's not even about getting the right person behind bars, and killing an innocent is just kosher? You remove the appeal system, and you remove the chance a person can actually even attempt to get out of jail. Appeals aren't usually rewarding for inmates even if they ARE innocent as it takes a number of them before anything is put in motion. Yes, things should be more efficient, but unfortunately that's a serious problem that simply killing people won't solve. How is any number of innocents worth the death penalty? How? I just don't get it. If your mother was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and was convicted of a crime that earned her the death penalty. All you can afford is a public defender. Appeals? That's pretty useless with a public defender to be honest. So, innocents die all to save a buck or two? Not that it actually will, it actually won't save any money, but you can't seem to present an argument as to why it would, and how it would make it better. It's fucking baffling how you don't even care if the right person gets arrested at any point in time and you still advocate for the death penalty.

your saved tax money isn't worth much when you're the one unjustly executed for a crime you didn't commit is it