Connecticut abolishes death penalty. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35720210]it's inefficient because the idiots wait 10-30 years to do something that takes seconds.[/QUOTE] Yeah forget any of that "proving guilt" and "right to appeals" shit. Just pull out a gun and execute them on the spot. God will sort them out

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35720210]it's inefficient because the idiots wait 10-30 years to do something that takes seconds. Well they are...and violent prisoners cause even more trouble and could end up killing someone that went to prison for something petty like selling weed. So immoral, right?[/QUOTE] So passing legislation to kill a significant portion of the prison population in a more streamlined process to ease prison crowding and cut costs seems like a good idea to you? Please tell me I'm reading this horribly wrong.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35720210]it's inefficient because the idiots wait 10-30 years to do something that takes seconds. [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] Well they are...and violent prisoners cause even more trouble and could end up killing someone that went to prison for something petty like selling weed. So immoral, right? [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] It's justice, and saying they deserve it is an opinion, so saying he doesn't or does is two different opinions and neither of the people saying it are right/wrong. [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] Yes, definitely, but keeping serial killers, rapists, and other terrible people is a waste. The food they feed those shitbirds could feed homeless people that are trying to live and are miserable. yet felons get free meals, showers, a bed, and free medical care.[/QUOTE] the cost implications of actually giving someone the lethal injection can take years and up to millions in legal costs. its in no way 'efficient'; not to mention the countless people that never have conclusive evidence and already get harsh enough penalties. the best conclusion to combat this is to improve the environments these serial killers grow up in, protect and rehabilitate prisoners, and make life a nicer experience for everyone. what makes you think the serial killers werent the homeless people beforehand?

Life and death sentences.. I don't see much difference to be honest.

[QUOTE=Noble;35720468]Yeah forget any of that "proving guilt" and "right to appeals" shit. Just pull out a gun and execute them on the spot. God will sort them out[/QUOTE] obviously be absolutely sure they are guilty. Should have put that in there. [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Rents;35720556]So passing legislation to kill a significant portion of the prison population in a more streamlined process to ease prison crowding and cut costs seems like a good idea to you? Please tell me I'm reading this horribly wrong.[/QUOTE] Not the getting rid of dangerous criminals part, christ you act like all prisoners are in for petty misdemeanors, and not in for committing brutal acts on innocent people. [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;35720587]the cost implications of actually giving someone the lethal injection can take years and up to millions in legal costs. its in no way 'efficient'; not to mention the countless people that never have conclusive evidence and already get harsh enough penalties. the best conclusion to combat this is to improve the environments these serial killers grow up in, protect and rehabilitate prisoners, and make life a nicer experience for everyone. what makes you think the serial killers werent the homeless people beforehand?[/QUOTE] of course some prisoners are homeless, and the death penalty process is horribly inefficient and needs major reforms, but getting rid of it and trying to rehabilitate every single terrible crime committing prisoner will turn out to be a horrible mistake.

[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;35719864]That sucks. Why leave these people on Earth for raping and killing people. They deserve to die, and prisons are already full to the brim with people.[/QUOTE] Look, 90% of this issue is just a matter of opinion (which I'm sure doesn't make yours immune to criticism but that's not what I'm here to argue), but there's plenty of objective facts you need to keep in mind when deciding whether it's something you want your money to go towards. Now, the most obvious problem with the death penalty is that it's only very, very rarely that you are entirely certain the person you are sentencing is the one who commited the crime. This, in fact, is where most of the money is spent; a slow, cumbersome process must analyze absolutely [I]everything[/I] related to the case, like evidence, people, the case itself, etc., as well as the convicted being given a chance to appeal to the court, which also must be analyzed in extreme detail. These things alone mean that you're devoting time and money that could be better spent on something as simple as a psychological evaluation for something that arguably fixes absolutely nothing. But what about deterrence? Surely the threat of death is enough to stop people from commiting crimes? Well, as the various states that still use the death penalty have [URL="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout"]shown[/URL], crime rates don't actually lower change a whole lot. If anything, [I]not[/I] having it means lower rates. This is partly because anybody even considering murder is not going to think about what happens after; they just want someone dead, it's all going with the flow afterwards. However, most murders are commited on the spot, in the heat of the moment, by individuals who, whilst not necessarily psychopathic, have too short of a temper; these murders are effectively impossible to prevent, much less deter. Well, maybe they just [I]deserve[/I] it anyway? Maybe. But that isn't any person's place to decide. Even if you can't accept that we shouldn't make such a choice in good conscience, please accept that that choice costs a lot of money for something that doesn't do a whole lot but kill someone. Maybe they have it coming. But you know who doesn't? The people who need the money saved to live another day.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35720818]obviously be absolutely sure they are guilty. Should have put that in there. [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] Not the getting rid of dangerous criminals part, christ you act like all prisoners are in for petty misdemeanors, and not in for committing brutal acts on innocent people. [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] of course some prisoners are homeless, and the death penalty process is horribly inefficient and needs major reforms, but getting rid of it and trying to rehabilitate every single terrible crime committing prisoner will turn out to be a horrible mistake.[/QUOTE] you've completely missed half of my point lol. and why wouldnt rehabilitation work? i think youre just obsessed with 'efficiency' and removing the people you dont like from society.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35720818]Not the getting rid of dangerous criminals part, christ you act like all prisoners are in for petty misdemeanors, and not in for committing brutal acts on innocent people.[/QUOTE] I didn't say a thing about what crimes anyone had committed, I was asking if you think more executions would help the prison crowding problem the US has.

"death to the death penalty"

[QUOTE=Bobie;35720970]you've completely missed half of my point lol. and why wouldnt rehabilitation work? i think youre just obsessed with 'efficiency' and removing the people you dont like from society.[/QUOTE] It's not worth rehabilitating a murderer, nor in many cases is it possible. Considering that the many / most of the public hold the expectations that a murderer spend the rest of their days in prison, there's not point in going about that aim.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35721020]It's not worth rehabilitating a murderer, nor in many cases is it possible. [/QUOTE] and you are qualified to make this assumption because...

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35721020]It's not worth rehabilitating a murderer, nor in many cases is it possible.[/QUOTE] You're [I]completely[/I] wrong about that. [quote] • Released prisoners with the lowest rearrest rates were those in prison for homicide (40.7%), rape (46.0%), other sexual assault (41.4%), and driving under the influence (51.5%). • Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide[/quote] From [url]http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Bobie;35720970]you've completely missed half of my point lol. and why wouldnt rehabilitation work? i think youre just obsessed with 'efficiency' and removing the people you dont like from society.[/QUOTE] It's not going to work for [b]every single prisoner[/b], how hard is it to understand that? Ok lets waste money instead and let them out after 10-20 years, and i'm sure the families of the victims will be happy.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35721412]It's not going to work for [b]every single prisoner[/b], how hard is it to understand that? Ok lets waste money instead and let them out after 10-20 years, and i'm sure the families of the victims will be happy.[/QUOTE] the families of victims don't matter. in a civilised society, prison isn't about vengeance

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35721412]It's not going to work for [b]every single prisoner[/b], how hard is it to understand that? Ok lets waste money instead and let them out after 10-20 years, and i'm sure the families of the victims will be happy.[/QUOTE] They wouldn't be happy because our culture has a raging boner for revenge. If we weren't so obsessed with revenge and instead focused on prevention (through proper education, better detection, and rehabilitation) maybe we'd have less of these problems in the first place

[QUOTE=Noble;35721527]They wouldn't be happy because our culture has a raging boner for revenge. If we weren't so obsessed with revenge and instead focused on prevention (through proper education, better detection, and rehabilitation) maybe we'd have less of these problems in the first place[/QUOTE] it would also help if we didn't throw so many people in prison for victimless crimes

[QUOTE=Sanius;35721454]the families of victims don't matter. in a civilised society, prison isn't about vengeance[/QUOTE] Wow, the victims family's do not matter? That is disrespectful as hell, no, wrong choice of words, its stupid as fuck to make such a bold statement. Go tell that to a family that has lost their song/daughter, ect, because some asshat killed them and gets out after 10 years.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35721412]It's not going to work for [B]every single prisoner[/B], how hard is it to understand that? Ok lets waste money instead and let them out after 10-20 years, and i'm sure the families of the victims will be happy.[/QUOTE] just like how the death penalty doesnt work for [B]every single murderer[/B]. ok lets waste millions on legal implications killing them after 10-20 years, and im sure the families of the prisoners will be happy. (i can do bad arguments too)

[QUOTE=Sanius;35721539]it would also help if we didn't throw so many people in prison for victimless crimes[/QUOTE] I agree with this, but basically saying 'screw the victims family's" is just terrible.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35721555]Wow, the victims family's do not matter? That is disrespectful as hell, no, wrong choice of words, its stupid as fuck to make such a bold statement. Go tell that to a family that has lost their song/daughter, ect, because some asshat killed them and gets out after 10 years.[/QUOTE] I'm sure he meant the family's opinions of what should happen to the criminal should not have any bearing on the actual sentence carried out against them.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35721555]Wow, the victims family's do not matter? That is disrespectful as hell, no, wrong choice of words, its stupid as fuck to make such a bold statement. Go tell that to a family that has lost their song/daughter, ect, because some asshat killed them and gets out after 10 years.[/QUOTE] okay I'll act like a civilised and rational human being while you run around beheading murderers. thanks for the go ahead

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35721583]I agree with this, but basically saying 'screw the victims family's" is just terrible.[/QUOTE] The victim's family doesn't have a right to see a convict die or suffer, but a convict has a right to live and not be subject to cruel punishment.

[QUOTE=Bobie;35721573]just like how the death penalty doesnt work for [B]every single murderer[/B]. ok lets waste millions on legal implications killing them after 10-20 years, and im sure the families of the prisoners will be happy. (i can do bad arguments too)[/QUOTE] it does suck for the criminals family, but the man/woman made a choice, and that's why they shouldn't waste decades for the inevitable and get it done with. bad argument? Ok, i'm guessing you haven't lost anyone because of someone killing them, or you would think drastically different.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35721555]Wow, the victims family's do not matter? That is disrespectful as hell, no, wrong choice of words, its stupid as fuck to make such a bold statement. Go tell that to a family that has lost their song/daughter, ect, because some asshat killed them and gets out after 10 years.[/QUOTE] If a family wants to murder another man for revenge, I'd chuck them into therapy together with the murderer. And no, their lust for revenge doesn't matter.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35721619]it does suck for the criminals family, but the man/woman made a choice, and that's why they shouldn't waste decades for the inevitable and get it done with. bad argument? Ok, i'm guessing you haven't lost anyone because of someone killing them, or you would think drastically different.[/QUOTE] it's not inevitable

[QUOTE=Rents;35721616]The victim's family doesn't have a right to see a convict die or suffer, but a convict has a right to live and not be subject to cruel punishment.[/QUOTE] Cruel punishment? Uh, lets see, lethal injection starts with a numbing agent, then chemicals that basically make them drift off and die painlessly, sounds pretty cruel.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35721634]Cruel punishment? Uh, lets see, lethal injection starts with a numbing agent, then chemicals that basically make them drift off and die painlessly, sounds pretty cruel.[/QUOTE] Except that it's not painless 100% of the time. It's been known for the numbing agent to fail, and they are merely paralysed whilst their internal organs are shut down. It's only "humane" in the sense that it makes an execution a specator friendly thing for the family watching. Here's a peer reviewed medical journal. [url]http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040156[/url] You might want to watch the BBC Horizon episode "The Science of Killing" or "How to Kill a Human Being", they're pretty interesting.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35721634]Cruel punishment? Uh, lets see, lethal injection starts with a numbing agent, then chemicals that basically make them drift off and die painlessly, sounds pretty cruel.[/QUOTE] yeah it does [editline]1[/editline] because, you know, it's state-sanctioned murder

[QUOTE=acds;35721625]If a family wants to murder another man for revenge, I'd chuck them into therapy together with the murderer. And no, their lust for revenge doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard, the family isn't murdering them, it's the people that authorize and inject the people with chemicals.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35721619]it does suck for the criminals family, but the man/woman made a choice, and that's why they shouldn't waste decades for the inevitable and get it done with. bad argument? Ok, i'm guessing you haven't lost anyone because of someone killing them, or you would think drastically different.[/QUOTE] what the hell does a victim's family have to do with it. if someone who commits a crime can be released with near certainty of them never committing that crime again, why shouldn't they be? answer me that.