If you love FAIRNESS, why aren't you for the abolition of the DEATH PENALTY?

[$5 submissions]

If you truly believe in fairness, you would support the abolition of the death penalty. SERIOUSLY. Why should a guy who has enough smarts or enough cash to get a decent lawyer be able to avoid the death penalty when some poor schmuck takes the ultimate penalty because his lawyer is an overworked PD? Plus, the death penalty isn't applied UNIFORMLY so even if 2 people had the exact same facts in their case but 1 just happened to live in the Nascar section of town while the other one lived in the section of town known for their Barbara Streissand retrospectives, they would NOT get the same penalty.

Plus, the DEATH PENALTY has been shown to be meted out disproportionately to people who kill WHITES.

Why can't America be more like Europe? They don't kill mofos for crimes there but Europe's still awesome.

Enlighten me

[_Richard_]

if you look at canada and the abolishment of capital punishment, you can get a real idea on the damage this policy causes society

some people just like good ol'fashioned state-sponsored murder however

[Barry-xlovecam]

Why pay to house, clothe and feed a mass murderer like that guy in Oslo last year?

In some cases there is no possibility of rehabilitation. Give the convicted multiple time or mass killers their due process and their appeal rights but if they are proven guilty upon appeal what good are they to society? They just take up prison space for life at taxpayer expense ...

One time manslaughter with no prior violent criminal convictions might be a case for a potential prison sentence.

[baddog]

When you move here feel free to petition your Congressperson to repeal the death penalty; until then, don't worry about it.

[arock10]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Why pay to house, clothe and feed a mass murderer like that guy in Oslo last year?

In some cases there is no possibility of rehabilitation. Give the convicted multiple time or mass killers their due process and their appeal rights but if they are proven guilty upon appeal what good are they to society? They just take up prison space for life at taxpayer expense ...

One time manslaughter with no prior violent criminal convictions might be a case for a potential prison sentence.

On average death penalty will cost the state more the life inprisonment. Those court cases get expensive plus sitting on death row for 10-15 years

[blackmonsters]

Fair would be that we killed all serial killers/rapist fast and then shit in their grave.



.

[Mutt]

This is honestly a worry of yours that one violent killer gets the death penalty and another sick fuck murderer doesn't and it isn't fair? lol calling the WAAAAAAAA-AMBULANCE for you

If your concern was the chance that the state might kill an innocent man that's a different story.

go look at who gets the death penalty and the circumstances of the crime, no everyday common murderer gets the death penalty. evil fuckers get it.

[Supz]

whats so unfair about the death penalty. An eye for an eye....

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by arock10

On average death penalty will cost the state more the life inprisonment. Those court cases get expensive plus sitting on death row for 10-15 years

How much has it cost keeping a Charles Manson a lifetime prisoner in California for 30+ years. He's never getting out so there is another 10 -20 years left to pay. And then there are court ordered health care for end-of-life to consider too. Court appointed defense counsel is not $400/hr + legal services. Assistant DAs don't make $400/hr either.

Their should be accelerated but fair due process in death sentence appeals. The Defendants are allowed to drag out their sentence of execution too long by the Courts.

On the other hand, we could give them a knife and a bag of seeds and send them to a new devil's island then film a reality show. "Last Dirtball Standing"

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Fair would be that we killed all serial killers/rapist fast and then shit in their grave.



.

Well said Unfortunately not political correct anymore to have it happen.

[kane]

I am all for getting rid of the death penalty. It is a waste of time and money and it does not act as a deterrent.

It isn't that I am against the idea of putting someone who has committed an terrible crime to death, but I am against wasting potentially millions of dollars to do so when it is cheaper and easier to just lock them up for the rest of their lives.

[sandman!]

i think it should be expanded with less appeals allowed

bring back hangings after trials not 2 years later after attorney's get to make 100k trying to overturn it

[kane]

Originally Posted by sandman!

i think it should be expanded with less appeals allowed

bring back hangings after trials not 2 years later after attorney's get to make 100k trying to overturn it

The only way I would support that is if they changed the trial system to force both sides to allow all evidence to be entered into court. Often times one side or the other will fight to get evidence held out of the trial that could hurt their case. In the past (and even now) DNA evidence that could prove without a doubt the guilt or innocence of the person is often not allowed into the trial because either the defense or prosecution has fought to have it held out because they know it might disprove their case.

There should be no fight for DNA evidence, it should automatically be entered into the trial. If every piece of evidence was admitted it would great cut down on the number of potentially innocent people that end up killed. I would also want to see the law modified so in cases where there is no hard DNA or physical evidence and we are relying on just eyewitness testimony (which is most of the time inaccurate) and evidence that is circumstantial are not allowed the death penalty or they are allowed more appeals. There have been a decent number of cases where innocent people spent 10+ years behind bars and were later found to be innocent. It would suck to find out that we were putting innocent people to death in the name of saving money and time.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Why pay to house, clothe and feed a mass murderer like that guy in Oslo last year?

In some cases there is no possibility of rehabilitation. Give the convicted multiple time or mass killers their due process and their appeal rights but if they are proven guilty upon appeal what good are they to society? They just take up prison space for life at taxpayer expense ...

One time manslaughter with no prior violent criminal convictions might be a case for a potential prison sentence.

All death penalty cases have to go before the supreme court. They cost more then life in prison.

[Rochard]

I used to believe in the death penalty. Kill someone, and we will kill you back. Then I figured out that's letting them off easy... It's much better off if they live in fear of being ass fucked four times daily for the next seventy years... That Castro guy.... Fuck him. He is about to learn what it's like to be someone's bitch for the rest of his fucking life.

[kane]

Originally Posted by slapass

All death penalty cases have to go before the supreme court. They cost more then life in prison.

It is estimated nationwide (so it will vary from state to state) that it costs an average of $2 million more to put someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life.

Take a state like California. Currently they have about 700 people sitting on death row. That means they will end up spending an extra $1.4 billion dollars they are going to spend on these people.

I would imagine there are better ways that the state could spend that money.

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by kane

It is estimated nationwide (so it will vary from state to state) that it costs an average of $2 million more to put someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life.

Take a state like California. Currently they have about 700 people sitting on death row. That means they will end up spending an extra $1.4 billion dollars they are going to spend on these people.

I would imagine there are better ways that the state could spend that money.

DUDE, what the fuck is WRONG WITH YOU!? This is GFY, you should not post LOGIC and REASON and back it up with FACTS! You are supposed to INSULT the person you don't agree with like baddog above or ridicule their motives like Mutt. Come on, man. Get with the program.

Here's a link to HOW TO DISCUSS ISSUES ON GFY 101 Read it. Master it. And get back to this thread.

Thank me later.

/

[kane]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

DUDE, what the fuck is WRONG WITH YOU!? This is GFY, you should not post LOGIC and REASON and back it up with FACTS! You are supposed to INSULT the person you don't agree with like baddog above or ridicule their motives like Mutt. Come on, man. Get with the program.

Here's a link to HOW TO DISCUSS ISSUES ON GFY 101 Read it. Master it. And get back to this thread.

Thank me later.

/

LOL I will get right on that. Soon I will have factless arguments based only on quality slams.

[- Jesus Christ -]

The US justice system currently has more to do with profit than fairness.

Discussing the death penalty is like discussing a small visible tumor on a body riddled with cancer.

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

if you look at canada and the abolishment of capital punishment, you can get a real idea on the damage this policy causes society

some people just like good ol'fashioned state-sponsored murder however

What happened in Canada? Did violent and heinous crimes spike up?

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

What happened in Canada? Did violent and heinous crimes spike up?

well, what was notable was the convictions of first degree murder went up.

Apparently, if people don't have to make life or death decisions, they're more willing to convict on first degree murder

which, had the result of dropping our crime rate to the floor

[Lichen]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Why should a guy who has enough smarts or enough cash to get a decent lawyer be able to avoid the death penalty when some poor schmuck takes the ultimate penalty because his lawyer is an overworked PD?

KARMA.

/thread closed

[woj]

Just to play devils advocate...

Whether you call it mental illness or character flaw or whatever, isn't a killer in some sense "sick"? and so is it morally right to kill a "sick" person?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by woj

Just to play devils advocate...

Whether you call it mental illness or character flaw or whatever, isn't a killer in some sense "sick"? and so is it morally right to kill a "sick" person?

I never understood the insanity plea... You have to be fucking nuts to kill someone in cold blood. Period.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I never understood the insanity plea... You have to be fucking nuts to kill someone in cold blood. Period.

doesn't "nuts" = sick?

Insanity plea means he didn't know what he was doing because of mental illness? So if someone knew what they were doing, derived pleasure from it or whatever, isn't it pretty clear that his mind is deranged? and doesn't deranged mind = sickness? Perhaps not in medical sense, but isn't it a form of sickness, no?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Answering a question with a question: If someone's "sickness" is being a sociopath and a killer too leaving a trail of dead victims why should society give them 3 hots and a cot for years and years?

Isn't that rewarding sociopathic behavior?

This type of person is not going to be cured and become a future Albert Schweitzer ...

Again, I am talking about multiple convicted murders, serial or mass killers.

Criminal insanity is a ticket to 50 years in lala land?

Be crazy and murder 10 people you should not forfeit your own worthless piece of shit life?

[woj]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Answering a question with a question: If someone's "sickness" is being a sociopath and a killer too leaving a trail of dead victims why should society give them 3 hots and a cot for years and years?

Isn't that rewarding sociopathic behavior?

This type of person is not going to be cured and become a future Albert Schweitzer ...

Again, I am talking about multiple convicted murders, serial or mass killers.

Criminal insanity is a ticket to 50 years in lala land?

Be crazy and murder 10 people you should not forfeit your own worthless piece of shit life?

[I'm not saying that they should, I'm just throwing out some thoughts to spark up discussion...]

lets say someone develops unusual contagious disease that has no cure, the person carrying it is uneffected, but anyone that comes with contact with that person dies... how should that case be handled?

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by kane

It is estimated nationwide (so it will vary from state to state) that it costs an average of $2 million more to put someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life.

Take a state like California. Currently they have about 700 people sitting on death row. That means they will end up spending an extra $1.4 billion dollars they are going to spend on these people.

I would imagine there are better ways that the state could spend that money.

Ask a man with $3 Mil if he would spend $2 Mil to kill the person who raped and killed his daughter.

He'd pay it right?
So what's wrong with people like me and you helping him out and paying it for him and people like currently sober who can't afford to kill?

[kane]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Ask a man with $3 Mil if he would spend $2 Mil to kill the person who raped and killed his daughter.

He'd pay it right?
So what's wrong with people like me and you helping him out and paying it for him and people like currently sober who can't afford to kill?

If we are going to look at it those terms lets do it this way. Every time they want to put someone to death they send a bill out to people and you have send them a check back. For every person who either can't afford to pay the amount or is against the death penalty their amount will be tacked on to everyone else's bills.

When you start to crunch the numbers in likely wouldn't be that much per person (likely less than $100 per year depending on how many people would willingly pay. If states wanted to do that and they found enough people who were willing to pay the costs so it wasn't passed on to every tax payer, I wouldn't have a problem with it so long as due process was still diligently maintained.

My opposing the death penalty is mostly of of cost and practicality. It doesn't work as a deterrent, it is expensive and sometimes we get it wrong, but if a group of people were willing to pick up the tab and we still made sure that we did the best possible job to make sure we were killing a guilty person, I would be fine with it.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by woj

Just to play devils advocate...

Whether you call it mental illness or character flaw or whatever, isn't a killer in some sense "sick"? and so is it morally right to kill a "sick" person?

Does not matter at all - sick people who are destroying other members of society should be terminated without any moral dilemma.

[adulttraffic]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Ask a man with $3 Mil if he would spend $2 Mil to kill the person who raped and killed his daughter.

Not only would I pay the 2 Mil I would toss in the other 1 Mil. Especially if I could do it with my bare hands.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I used to believe in the death penalty. Kill someone, and we will kill you back. Then I figured out that's letting them off easy... It's much better off if they live in fear of being ass fucked four times daily for the next seventy years... That Castro guy.... Fuck him. He is about to learn what it's like to be someone's bitch for the rest of his fucking life.

You think he will stay in general population>

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

DUDE, what the fuck is WRONG WITH YOU!? This is GFY, you should not post LOGIC and REASON and back it up with FACTS! You are supposed to INSULT the person you don't agree with like baddog above or ridicule their motives like Mutt. Come on, man. Get with the program.

Sorry you took that as an insult; after reading it two more times, I don't see it.

[Creatine]

Justice would be taking all the prisoners and evil people and putting them on an island and having them fight to the death.

If we had a system like this, no one in their right minds would comit crimes.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Creatine

Justice would be taking all the prisoners and evil people and putting them on an island and having them fight to the death.

If we had a system like this, no one in their right minds would comit crimes.

I disagree. When you look back through history there has always been crime. There are places where they cut your hand off for stealing and yet there are still thieves. There were times when people were flogged, crucified, beheaded, burned at the stake and all sorts of other crazy, inhuman things for various crimes and there were still criminals.

If we just took a bunch of prisoners and dropped them on an island who is to say they would end up fighting to the death? Would there be some violence? Likely yes, but more likely they would create some kind of society for themselves. The only way I could see them fighting to the death is if we forced their hand in some way (IE only giving food to the winners) and when you start doing that kind of crazy shit I think the general public would be pretty turned off to it and demand a change.

[pornmasta]

!!Free!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by woj

doesn't "nuts" = sick?

Insanity plea means he didn't know what he was doing because of mental illness? So if someone knew what they were doing, derived pleasure from it or whatever, isn't it pretty clear that his mind is deranged? and doesn't deranged mind = sickness? Perhaps not in medical sense, but isn't it a form of sickness, no?

You have to be mentally ill to kill someone without a reason. Killing someone for insurance money or because they love someone other than you isn't a valid reason; You have to be mentally ill to do this.

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Answering a question with a question: If someone's "sickness" is being a sociopath and a killer too leaving a trail of dead victims why should society give them 3 hots and a cot for years and years?

But it's not "3 hots and a cot". It's barely a basic existence and in the mean time you have worry about your asshole being violated.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by baddog

You think he will stay in general population>

Oh, I hope so.

I don't understand why he shouldn't be in the "general population". He's guilty of kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder. Isn't that what half of the prison population is in prison for?

Society was unable to protect his victims - Society should be unwilling to protect him in prison.

[Mutt]

Do you not think the nature of criminal mind hasn't been debated for centuries? If you're going to label everybody who murders another person as 'mentally ill' then do it for lesser crimes as well because the same liberal interpretation of 'mentally ill' applies - I think somebody who scams an old person out of their life savings is a sick twisted fuck. Everybody who does anything criminal has an excuse, as we create more 'mental illness' categories everybody eventually will have a diagnosis of being mentally ill in some way.

For criminal acts we define 'criminally insane' the way it should be defined, only when the mental illness is so severe that the criminal can't understand the nature of his crime or control his impulses.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Do you not think the nature of criminal mind hasn't been debated for centuries? If you're going to label everybody who murders another person as 'mentally ill' then do it for lesser crimes as well because the same liberal interpretation of 'mentally ill' applies - I think somebody who scams an old person out of their life savings is a sick twisted fuck. Everybody who does anything criminal has an excuse, as we create more 'mental illness' categories everybody eventually will have a diagnosis of being mentally ill in some way.

For criminal acts we define 'criminally insane' the way it should be defined, only when the mental illness is so severe that the criminal can't understand the nature of his crime or control his impulses.

That's true, every criminal is in some sense "sick", that's why we put them in jail, partly to get "justice", but also partly to cure them... criminal has a chance to ponder his actions, and hopefully come out cured or at least less "sick" than they came in... whether that's the best approach or how effective it is a completely different question... but don't you agree that the objective is to let person out in a less "sick" state than they came in? or is the objective to just store them away for X years in a cage to make sure they are unable to harm anyone else and to get "justice"?

a scam artist is only slightly deranged so we can safely let him out after 5 years...
a cold murderer is badly fucked up, with little to no chance of getting better so we might as well kill him?


(by "sick" I mean it in the broadest sense, not necessarilly mental illness, but perhaps a character flaw, inability to control impulses, poor decision making skills, etc... just any flaw that would cause a person to commit a crime...)

[arock10]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Oh, I hope so.

I don't understand why he shouldn't be in the "general population". He's guilty of kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder. Isn't that what half of the prison population is in prison for?

Society was unable to protect his victims - Society should be unwilling to protect him in prison.

Nope drug related offenses

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

But it's not "3 hots and a cot". It's barely a basic existence and in the mean time you have worry about your asshole being violated.

By that logic imprisonment is cruel and unusual punishment -- send them to Hell Island with a knife and a bag of seeds.

[PR_Glen]

This debate 101? I recall doing this in grade 9 myself..

How can putting someone on death row cost more than having them 'rot in prison' for the next 40-50 years? I know it takes forever for things like that to take place but still more cost effective to flush the fish rather than feeding and having to babysit it for 4 or 5 times longer than that.

[pornguy]

Getting rid of the death penalty does not solve this issue. Then they will just get life while the rich guy walks.

[kane]

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

This debate 101? I recall doing this in grade 9 myself..

How can putting someone on death row cost more than having them 'rot in prison' for the next 40-50 years? I know it takes forever for things like that to take place but still more cost effective to flush the fish rather than feeding and having to babysit it for 4 or 5 times longer than that.

There are a lot of different costs that add up quickly. First, death row inmates are houses separately from the general population so there is an additional cost in just keeping them in their cells. The courts are so bogged down it can often take 6-10 years for a death penalty case to make it through the courts so for all of those years the prison has the extra cost of housing that inmate on death row.

Another aspect is the legal fees. There are a serious of legal steps that must be taken in every case no matter if the defendant is asking for them or not. All of these legal fees and court costs add up quickly not to mention many of these people are also fighting and doing much more than just the minimum required steps, they are trying every legal angle they can to stop their execution. That costs money.

Put together housing them in special units for many years and all the legal fees involved in getting the case through the system and it adds up very quickly.

[Tom_PM]

To me it comes down pretty simply. I view death as a release from suffering. Therefore, death is not the ultimate penalty. It's the earliest release program there could ever be.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

By that logic imprisonment is cruel and unusual punishment -- send them to Hell Island with a knife and a bag of seeds.

Not cruel and unusual punishment at all... A roof over their head and three meals a day... Not exactly paradise, but it's not cruel either.

[winter_]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

If you truly believe in fairness, you would support the abolition of the death penalty. SERIOUSLY. Why should a guy who has enough smarts or enough cash to get a decent lawyer be able to avoid the death penalty when some poor schmuck takes the ultimate penalty because his lawyer is an overworked PD? Plus, the death penalty isn't applied UNIFORMLY so even if 2 people had the exact same facts in their case but 1 just happened to live in the Nascar section of town while the other one lived in the section of town known for their Barbara Streissand retrospectives, they would NOT get the same penalty.

Plus, the DEATH PENALTY has been shown to be meted out disproportionately to people who kill WHITES.

Why can't America be more like Europe? They don't kill mofos for crimes there but Europe's still awesome.

Enlighten me

in fifty years time we will all be on our death beds, the death penalty when thought of that way is almost defeated because the suspect will eventually die anyway. it is just a question of quality of life, and the quality of life inside prisons where i come from is pretty quishy.

sometimes i ask the same question about why the united states can't change.

[globofun]

Death is a too easy way out.....torture them daily while on death row! (Joke)

[SpicyM]

If you have to do executions it means the capital punishment does not work for it's purpose.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by winter_

in fifty years time we will all be on our death beds, the death penalty when thought of that way is almost defeated because the suspect will eventually die anyway. it is just a question of quality of life, and the quality of life inside prisons where i come from is pretty quishy.

sometimes i ask the same question about why the united states can't change.

It is a state issue, not federal. The question you ask yourself just means you do not understand the question.

Originally Posted by SpicyM

If you have to do executions it means the capital punishment does not work for it's purpose.

By that argument if you need to put people in jail; putting people in jail does not work for its purpose.