The execution of a Georgia man who murdered a cop on the side of the road in 1998 has been scheduled - Polidicks

Well then people can't really complain about the cost because a large part of it is going to supporting the accused's legal rights, right?

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46869002]Well then people can't really complain about the cost because a large part of it is going to supporting the accused's legal rights, right?[/QUOTE] Right. But if the process is unbelievably expensive (it is), and really does very little that just keeping the person locked up doesn't, what's the point in paying for the process at all? Why not just lock the fucker up as you do every other prisoner. Put them in a more secure prison if you want, it'll probably work out quite a bit cheaper than execution would.

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;46869102]wtf are you even trying to do with this post? Supporting the legal rights of people condemned to death row is pretty important. Are you trying to make people feel guilty for thinking that's a good idea?[/QUOTE] No I'm saying that people shouldn't complain about the cost of execution if a good part of that cost is going towards trying to save them from execution.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46869002]Well then people can't really complain about the cost because a large part of it is going to supporting the accused's legal rights, right?[/QUOTE] It's still a lot more costly than a life sentence, and it doesn't serve any additional purpose since the culprit isn't going to be released into society either way. In that sense capital punishment is a waste of money.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46869112]No I'm saying that people shouldn't complain about the cost of execution if a good part of that cost is going towards trying to save them from execution.[/QUOTE] We can still complain about the cost of execution, when the cost is still significantly more than just not killing them at all. What the fuck kind of argument is this even pretending to be?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46869106]Right. But if the process is unbelievably expensive (it is), and really does very little that just keeping the person locked up doesn't, what's the point in paying for the process at all? Why not just lock the fucker up as you do every other prisoner. Put them in a more secure prison if you want, it'll probably work out quite a bit cheaper than execution would.[/QUOTE] I suppose you're right in this respect - but it's infuriating to know that we have killers serving life in prison who enjoy a secure future in the way of free meals and enjoy cable television while many homeless people who aren't killers suffer on the streets. I guess since execution's costs are so inflated it's not really any better than life in prison but morally speaking I see no reason to keep someone alive who has purposefully taken lives. I guess I'm frustrated with the penal system as a whole.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46869202]I suppose you're right in this respect - but it's infuriating to know that we have killers serving life in prison who enjoy a secure future in the way of free meals and enjoy cable television while many homeless people who aren't killers suffer on the streets. I guess since execution's costs are so inflated it's not really any better than life in prison but morally speaking I see no reason to keep someone alive who has purposefully taken lives. I guess I'm frustrated with the penal system as a whole.[/QUOTE] I think it's more a testament to your shitty social security than to your penal system.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46869202]I suppose you're right in this respect - but [b]it's infuriating to know that we have killers serving life in prison who enjoy a secure future in the way of free meals and enjoy cable television while many homeless people who aren't killers suffer on the streets.[/b] I guess since execution's costs are so inflated it's not really any better than life in prison but morally speaking I see no reason to keep someone alive who has purposefully taken lives. I guess I'm frustrated with the penal system as a whole.[/QUOTE] this is like people who get mad at raising the minimum wage because their current wage is now the minimum wage and they sudden feel like they're making less. i don't think you should be angry at the courts, but more angry at the lack of a social safety net.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;46869306]this is like people who get mad at raising the minimum wage because their current wage is now the minimum wage and they sudden feel like they're making less. i don't think you should be angry at the courts, but more angry at the lack of a social safety net.[/QUOTE] That's the thing. I'm not exactly a proponent of social welfare programs and such but don't you think the investment we put in our prisoners should instead be put into giving opportunity to the homeless? Why should criminals be fed for free when everyone else, especially the economically disadvantaged, has to work to eat? I guess it's a classic situation of "we should be spending this here instead of there" that doesn't really have a solution, but still

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46869353]That's the thing. I'm not exactly a proponent of social welfare programs and such but don't you think the investment we put in our prisoners should instead be put into giving opportunity to the homeless? Why should criminals be fed for free when everyone else, especially the economically disadvantaged, has to work to eat? I guess it's a classic situation of "we should be spending this here instead of there" that doesn't really have a solution, but still[/QUOTE] because housing the homeless is something the government is allowed to take for granted in 2014 not to say that like, prisoners don't deserve humane treatment. you can't forfeit human rights if a governing body decides to imprison you, protecting your human and civil rights is their job

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;46869462]I don't like the homeless situation at all but the key difference is that prisons and the justice system are directly responsible for prisoners. They can't exactly just decide that in order to save money someone in their prison doesn't get to eat today, at least not legally.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=.Lain;46869408]because housing the homeless is something the government is allowed to take for granted in 2014 not to say that like, prisoners don't deserve humane treatment. you can't forfeit human rights if a governing body decides to imprison you, protecting your human and civil rights is their job[/QUOTE] Yeah I guess that makes sense.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46868924]And what about cases like this one where it's glaringly obvious that the person is guilty[/QUOTE] Well since the jury is supposed to decide beyond the shadow of a doubt I believe everyone exonerated through an appeals process was "glaringly guilty" at one point (or at least they should have been).

My stance on this, as it has for years, remains the same: execution solves nothing. Once a man has been given a life sentence, that's it for him. He's no longer a threat to society. So, I just don't don't see the merit in arguing that he should then be executed. What does killing him accomplish, besides satisfying some base need for revenge? It doesn't undue his crimes or take away the pain he's created, and it doesn't prevent him from causing any more since he's already detained in a secure environment. It also hasn't shown to have any real effect on prison populations in the form of a deterrent. Ignoring the moral side of the equation for a moment, what practical reason is there for execution when life in prison accomplishes the same goal without necessitating the needless loss of life?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46869813]Ignoring the moral side of the equation for a moment, what practical reason is there for execution when life in prison accomplishes the same goal without necessitating the needless loss of life?[/QUOTE] Even if we took morals into account, if morality includes engaging in practically useless murderous acts then I don't want to be a moral person. No matter how you look at it, there's no actual justification in support of death penalty.

He's not worried about dying, just watch the video. He gave that cop minutes to shoot him. The cop hesitated, as any caring person would. He didn't and the cop died. As far as trying to find reason to not execute him, it really doesn't matter, because the man in question, I guarantee, does not care one way or the other. He'd chuckle at the argument to keep him alive.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46869202]I suppose you're right in this respect - but it's infuriating to know that we have killers serving life in prison who enjoy a secure future in the way of free meals and enjoy cable television while many homeless people who aren't killers suffer on the streets. I guess since execution's costs are so inflated it's not really any better than life in prison but morally speaking I see no reason to keep someone alive who has purposefully taken lives. I guess I'm frustrated with the penal system as a whole.[/QUOTE] you shouldn't need a reason to keep someone alive, just as much as you shouldn't need a reason to let someone freely assemble, speak their opinion, practice their religion, or own property. life is an inalienable right guaranteed by the united states constitution. if you're upset about the comparative conditions that the poor face, then advocate for reforms that benefit those people. [QUOTE=BFG9000;46869353]That's the thing. I'm not exactly a proponent of social welfare programs and such but don't you think the investment we put in our prisoners should instead be put into giving opportunity to the homeless? Why should criminals be fed for free when everyone else, especially the economically disadvantaged, has to work to eat? I guess it's a classic situation of "we should be spending this here instead of there" that doesn't really have a solution, but still[/QUOTE] the great bulk of people who are in prison right now would never face the death penalty anyway, so implementing it wouldn't 'thin out' the population or save costs in any respect. if we want to save money on imprisonment, then we should stop with all this clearly ineffective tough-on-crime war-on-drugs bullhonkey and implement a policy that works [I]with[/I] disadvantaged, crime-ridden communities rather than [I]against[/I] them. legalization, education, employment and volunteer programs, rehabilitation programs both inside prison and out, outreach programs, incentives for reporting crimes; we can be doing any number of smarter, more effective long-term solutions to crime than simply throwing criminals in a jail cell and calling them bad people.

The death penalty is society deciding that a person has done something heinous enough that they no longer deserve the right to be alive. It's a natural thing to wish on someone who has committed to actions that are unforgivable. This guy is not right in the head. No amount of punishment can make him feel truly wrong for his actions. It sucks but the only thing left is to just let him take the death penalty and let it be over. If he rots in jail for the rest of his natural life, would that bring anymore ease to the grief? I believe to most normal people, the promise of an early death and the rest of your life in jail is a scary enough thought to make you think twice about committing atrocities, but when someone as crazy as this gets to that point I don't think they care about it one way or another. The most important thing we can take from events like these is to study what went wrong and why so we can prevent them in the future, which I'm sure is what has been done. We can't let officers get mowed down like that, for something so trivial. Maybe the officer handled the situation incompetently, or was he lacking in resources on how to take control of that situation? Either way, I don't blame officers for being jumpy when they pull you over now, that's for sure.

[QUOTE=ThePanther;46871336] I believe to most normal people, the promise of an early death and the rest of your life in jail is a scary enough thought to make you think twice about committing atrocities, but when someone as crazy as this gets to that point I don't think they care about it one way or another.[/quote] Nope! Countless research shows that deterrence is ineffective against violent crime. In some cases a strong penalty can actually be associated with a small, but statistically significant, increase in violent crime. The death penalty literally serves no function in deterring crime. The thought that being "tough on crime" leads to a decrease in crime has been around since forever, but it is incorrect.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46869813]My stance on this, as it has for years, remains the same: execution solves nothing. Once a man has been given a life sentence, that's it for him. He's no longer a threat to society. So, I just don't don't see the merit in arguing that he should then be executed. What does killing him accomplish, besides satisfying some base need for revenge? It doesn't undue his crimes or take away the pain he's created, and it doesn't prevent him from causing any more since he's already detained in a secure environment. It also hasn't shown to have any real effect on prison populations in the form of a deterrent. Ignoring the moral side of the equation for a moment, what practical reason is there for execution when life in prison accomplishes the same goal without necessitating the needless loss of life?[/QUOTE] In an open and shut case like this one, killing the perp should never be expensive like it is in most execution-considered cases. If it is like this one, and the perp is obviously never going to see the outside of a prison again, it's should be easier, cheaper and more accepted to place a shotgun up against his skull and push the insides around a little. Fuck using expensive chemicals or whatnot, and screw keeping him alive. Life in prison is a death sentence, except infinitely more cruel and arduous for all parties involved than blam, squeegee, rinse, repeat. And arguing, as you are, about the "needless loss of life" involved in carrying out an execution like this, it's important to realize that it's a loss of life regardless of the time in which the life is lost, and it should be far more efficient/practical/painless to cause it to cease now than it would be to wait forty years. Not that it actually is better in reality, or that all cases involving the death penalty end up with the proper person dying, but in a more practical world, we wouldn't get worked up over some murdering bastard getting a few inches taken off the top. Sometimes it's important to understand why someone did something and work with them to prevent it happening again, and other times it's better just to go "you murdered a cop, you were on videotape, you admitted to the crime, you can't be rehabilitated, let's just kill you and move on." None of this is to say that I agree with the use of the death penalty in any but the most clear-cut, open/closed cases that exist. This one would be a prime example, and it's probably one of the very few where I would advocate killing the perp. Anything other than a case like this and it becomes "what if the guy we're going to kill didn't actually do anything," and in a case with any degree of uncertainty, execution should not be on the table.

[QUOTE=joes33431;46870874]you shouldn't need a reason to keep someone alive, just as much as you shouldn't need a reason to let someone freely assemble, speak their opinion, practice their religion, or own property. [B]life is an inalienable right guaranteed by the united states constitution[/B].[/QUOTE] Liberty is also presented as an inalienable right. You forfeit that when you break the law, so it also possible to forfeit your right to life.

It's 2015. We just need to let back to the future happen and abolish lawyers. I'm still waiting for my auto-tying nike shoes and self-drying jackets too.

[QUOTE=haloguy234;46871797]It's 2015. We just need to let back to the future happen and abolish lawyers. I'm still waiting for my auto-tying nike shoes and self-drying jackets too.[/QUOTE] They abolished lawyers in Back to the Future?

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46871834]They abolished lawyers in Back to the Future?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://puu.sh/eaGHv/3fe1037e0b.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=GunFox;46871582]Nope! Countless research shows that deterrence is ineffective against violent crime. In some cases a strong penalty can actually be associated with a small, but statistically significant, increase in violent crime. The death penalty literally serves no function in deterring crime. The thought that being "tough on crime" leads to a decrease in crime has been around since forever, but it is incorrect.[/QUOTE] Who'd a thunk. Thanks for the info.

[QUOTE=haloguy234;46871873][IMG]http://puu.sh/eaGHv/3fe1037e0b.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Haha, I don't remember that

[QUOTE=Matrix374;46868107]Well you can't learn anything from a guy if he's dead can you. You could argue that they can do the research and still kill off the guy though since it's a really long time before you actually get executed.[/QUOTE] Oh, no, I'm trying to make the case that I actually want people to live and want to make a productive life for them and out of them.

I heard about this case on NPR earlier. There is a fairly compelling case for PTSD, which would probably have changed the progression of the case if it happened today. But, he was a veteran of that shitty little war that nobody likes to talk about. Either way, the death penalty is barbaric, outdated nonsense that solves absolutely nothing. We need to get with the rest of the fucking world already, and stop standing with countries like Saudi Arabia and China. But, you know, that's just one more item on the looooong list of things that the rest of the civilized world has figured out, but we somehow can't.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;46871792]Liberty is also presented as an inalienable right. You forfeit that when you break the law, so it also possible to forfeit your right to life.[/QUOTE] that's true, i guess i didn't think of that. [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePanther;46871336]The death penalty is society deciding that a person has done something heinous enough that they no longer deserve the right to be alive. It's a natural thing to wish on someone who has committed to actions that are unforgivable.[/quote] it's a natural thing for one to want to dash someone's brains across a rock for fucking their spouse, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable. [quote]This guy is not right in the head. No amount of punishment can make him feel truly wrong for his actions.[/quote] that's because punishment doesn't make people feel like they were in the wrong; it often just leads them to believe that the people administering the punishment are assholes, or otherwise leads them to simply avoid getting caught to avoid punishment instead of actually stopping their criminal deeds. [QUOTE]It sucks but the only thing left is to just let him take the death penalty and let it be over. [B]If he rots in jail for the rest of his natural life, would that bring anymore ease to the grief?[/B][/QUOTE] yes. [QUOTE]I believe to most normal people, the promise of an early death and the rest of your life in jail is a scary enough thought to make you think twice about committing atrocities, but when someone as crazy as this gets to that point I don't think they care about it one way or another.[/QUOTE] most if not all studies on the subject point to deterrence being ineffective; it didn't work in the middle ages, it doesn't work now.

If I was in his position I would've shot him the moment he picked up the gun. My only reasoning being that the suspect seemed highly belligerent and most likely mentally unstable. Trying to imagine what's going on inside with the officer... Christ, the video alone makes my hair stand. Imagine being shown that video as a police officer, and the next day making your normal traffic stops...

[QUOTE=joshuadim;46855275][IMG]http://puu.sh/e3XAR/e3e1d32597.png[/IMG] oh my fucking god seriously[/QUOTE] And he is comparing an irrelevant incident from 1998 to things happening in 2014/15?