WHat the hell is wrong with people?

[brianlojeck]

>He argued that it was cheaper to house a prisioner (very dangerous one in maximum
>security) than it was to eventually pay for all the legal automatic system stuff to eventually
>be able to carry out the death sentence.

Then we need to do it faster and cheaper. What does a hollow-point .45 round cost?

[Lohman446]

I'm with Phil on this one - I have seen the numbers at one point, and although leary of any statistics have accepted that it is cheaper to house them for life than to give them the appelate process required for the death penalty - which I beleive is rightfully required.

I am not morally opposed to the death penalty, in fact I am strongly in favor of it, and beleive the state should always have it as an option for crimes so heinous we cannot conceive of them.

However, I am more opposed to having any chance of risking executing an innocent person, no matter how slim. I would rather see a million people jailed rather than executed than one wrongly executed and than determined after the fact.

Beleiving that it is cheaper to house them for life than to execute them - along with my thoughts that no system can be 100% perfect brings me to a logical light opposition to the death penalty used under normal circumstances. However, I beleive even unused it might be a deterrent, and beleive that every state should have laws on the book allowing it - but it should not be used except in the most severe of circumstances

[SpecialBlend2786]

This world makes me ****ing sick

[Hasty8]

Interestingly enough I once had a heated debate with a friend of mine (Lawyer from Millwalkie) about death penatly. He never realy made much progress in convincing me (he was against it and I was arguing for it) until he stopped me in my tracks with this argument....

He argued that it was cheaper to house a prisioner (very dangerous one in maximum security) than it was to eventually pay for all the legal automatic system stuff to eventually be able to carry out the death sentence.

Now he had some numbers and facts at the time that I cannot recall but he pretty much was throwing out numbers that seemed reasonable. And if your going to carry out a death sentence you MUST have all these chances to make sure that person is guilty so there is no real resonable way to reduce that. But that for instance if it took you say 250,000 to keep him for say 30 or so years.... or a Million or more to go through all the legal process to kill him for his crimes.... which one is better? And which one is more punative? Making him rot in jail for all his life?

Even though I do not really appose the death penalty moralisticaly .... I wonder if its all worth it after thinking about that.

What is easier on the patient? Letting the cancerous cells slowly multiply until the kill them or enduring a rather painful but possibly life saving technique that will allow them to live a fuller and longer life?

The fact is that with current DNA testing and other new sciences two eventualities are brought about.

First, the likelyhood of convicting someone in error is greatly reduced and the availability of appeals should be likewise reduced.

Example, say you break into a house and kill everyone in the house. During the investigation forensics compiles the following biological evidence against you:
Solid prints on the murder weapon.
The victims blood found on the perps clothes.
The perps bio-residue on the victims in the way of dry skin or other evidence if he raped anyone.

With pieces of evidence such as these, once the conviction is given there should be no more appeals. Give the guy years to rot in jail and allow the defense to see if any tampering took place which, more often that not, does not take place.

I understand that alot of the appeals are place in regards to a death penalty are there because the system has always been less than perfect but I think with these new technologies which have already helped solve quite a few "cold cases" here in NY that the system can be more streamlined.

I had heard some where the Texas was trying to pass a law that essentially states that if three or more witnesses can corroborate that they saw you kill someone then you get no appeals or something like that.

[PyRo]

Witnesses although important are not a reliable source of evidence. There have been so many cases where people were jailed based on eyewitness testimony (somtimes from multiple witnesses) only to later be exonerated by uncontroversial evidence.

[Hasty8]

Witnesses although important are not a reliable source of evidence. There have been so many cases where people were jailed based on eyewitness testimony (somtimes from multiple witnesses) only to later be exonerated by uncontroversial evidence.

While I agree with that, the actual number of cases overturned after verdict based on unreliable witness testimony is fairly miniscule. That's the entire reason that both sides get a chance to question each witness and determine their credibility.

However, if three or more can corroborate the correct sequence of events then the likelyhood of a verdict being overturned is minimal unless some newly spectacular evidence comes to light.

An excellent example of this is the movie "Twelve Angry Men". While I like originals I do have to say that the recent remake of it with Jack Lemmon was spectacular.

[PyRo]

They may remember the sequence of events, but that doesn't mean they will all remember the persons face correctly. And when the police have him in custody your mind jumps the the conclusion that that must be the guy.

[cphilip]

What is easier on the patient? Letting the cancerous cells slowly multiply until the kill them or enduring a rather painful but possibly life saving technique that will allow them to live a fuller and longer life?

LOL.... we are not talking about someone like a patient that deserves a quick cure or quick mercifull end.... we are talking about the end of a murderer so henious that he deserves to die a slow and painfull death or not! So.... maybe you should chose an analagy that actually fits? That one is not gonna fly...

[Hasty8]

LOL.... we are not talking about someone like a patient that deserves a quick cure or quick mercifull end.... we are talking about the end of a murderer so henious that he deserves to die a slow and painfull death or not! So.... maybe you should chose an analagy that actually fits? That one is not gonna fly...

Actually it does fly very well so long as you use a wee bit of something I like to call imagination. Picture that society is a body. Do we allow the cancerous, destructive cells to roam freely or to survice even in a cordoned off section of the body?

No, we eliminate them.

Second. Treating the murderous scum to a long and protracted life in prison just to be mean to them makes us no better then them.

Third. Economizing the costs between frying these monsters and keeping them alive in prison till they expire on their own sends two very distinct messages. First, it says that we value dollars over human lives. Second, it shows that we would rather allow the guilty to live while the innocent are allowed to be slaughtered.

While I know what prisons are like (my neighbor is an officer at Rikers) I can honestly say that it sickens me that these animals are allowed to live after having been sent away fo their third or even fourth murder and they will get food, education, medical coverage and access to as many lawyers that will listen to them all on our tax dollars.

Screw that I say.

Kill the monsters.

[Hasty8]

They may remember the sequence of events, but that doesn't mean they will all remember the persons face correctly. And when the police have him in custody your mind jumps the the conclusion that that must be the guy.

Pyro, until you can show me that a vast majority of criminal cases are overturned on faulty witness testimony I will consider that you are basically play the devil advocate.

The witness is still, and will always be, the most valuable piece of evidence in any testimony.