Who here thinks that private prisons are a good idea? Anyone?
For the lulz, at least?
I think its a good idea, but there needs to be restrictions. However, I don't mind either if we don't have them. A prison is not a free enterprise thing, you go because you committed a crime.
Private opinion, now: There is a man from Red Deer on death row in Idaho. He's been there since about 1983 (seriously). He's due to be executed in January next year, and I can't imagine why they would think that's a good idea after this guy having been in prison for close to 30 YEARS already! No, he wasn't wrongly convicted; he did in fact murder two people. But the "system" down there is just ludicrous.
Note that I'm not saying he should be released. But executed? After all these years - nearly three decades - who would that benefit?
To be quite frank, I think a speedy, public execution would do a lot more good then a lethal injection 30 years after the fact, so I don't support the idiotic way that its being done in Idaho. There is a need for appeals yes, but not that many. Appeals should be centered on wrongful conviction, not "The punishment is too harsh." Those appeals should be thrown out. If you were stupid enough to commit such a crime, then tough cookies for you. If you didn't commit a crime, appeal your innocence.
Also, its idiotic how these things can go to SCOTUS. Number one, they have no constitutional right to be involved. Punishment would fall to the purview of the state government, according to the 10th amendment. Not only does the Federal government have no right to command or condemn Capital Punishment except in DC and the military (Both of which they should enact it for) they have no right to be involved in the process at all. It should be totally state handled. It should only go to the state court, and only if there's a good reason. If the evidence is all circumstantial and there is reasonable doubt, they are not guilty. Its time to stop compromising. If we are sure they are guilty (And by sure I mean sure enough to convict, beyond reasonable doubt) then the murderer/rapist should be executed, every time, unless they were insane or a minor (And honestly the age should be 15 at highest. I find it insulting that the government thinks people my age are not able to understand NOT to kill people. It insults my intelligence.) If there isn't enough evidence, DON'T CONVICT THEM!
Yes there will be mistakes, but the majority of the ones we have is because a jury has a preconceived belief of guilt. Another thing that would fix this problem is to continue to require 12 votes for guilt, but require at least half the jury to think he's guilty for the trial to even continue. If less than half the jury thinks he's guilty, he's probably not.
As for the execution still happening after 30 years, I still think justice should be served. Normally it takes 10 years and THAT makes my head spin. But 30? The system is moronic! However, if they DON'T execute him, then they are giving up one of the very few cases justice is served. I would rather them continue to use it, in fact, every sane state should start using it Texas-style. Give SCOTUS an overload. Force them to simplify the system.
Also- @Brian- I am going to reply to you so as to actually debate rather than get into a habit of name calling.
Finally of course I have problems with the American trial system, it is unbalanced, gives far more protection to the wealthy than the poor, and is far too trigger happy with it's punishments. When the Irish judiciary, one of the tougher judiciaries in Europe, is loath to allow extradition warrants to the US due to worries over sentencing being too tough and defendants not getting a fair trial, you know there is something serious wrong.
I disagree (In general) that sentencing is too tough, with the exception of victimless crimes (Which should NEVER get prison time, if they should be illegal at all), I agree on the fair trial. We do screw it up, and your statistics make this clear. However, that isn't a problem with the death penalty, but the trial system. As I said to Valka, while I think a unanimous verdict of guilty being needed is reasonable, I think its kind of silly that a unanimous verdict of innocent is needed to let them go. That isn't presuming people innocent like you are supposed to.
1) It is my own opinion that any society advanced enough to properly enforce this punishment is advanced beyond the point of needing it.
I consider it to be a matter of justice, not necessity. And to protect prisoners. The only other alternative for mass murder is solitary, and I consider that more cruel besides.
2) It is utterly wasteful, in that it gives the convict no chance to redeem, himself or to rehabilitate himself, both of which can be done with the perfectly adequate life without parole.
I don't know about Ireland, but in the US "Life without parole" is a complete joke. The average sentence actually served for murder is about 5 1/2 years. This is due to a completely moronic system of plea bargaining, and parole laws changing all the time that make "Life without parole" suddenly allow parole. One man who raped and murdered a 14 year old girl was going to be executed, until the mother asked the judge to give him life without parole instead. The judge agreed. Within 5 years, parole law changed. He is now eligible for parole every two years.
Now, if this were changed, would I still support capital punishment? Yes I would, but I'd be more understanding of the other way, which, at least in the US, is a fail.
3) It discriminates against the poor in society, as in they are more likely to receive the capital tariff when the crime carries it.
I agree with this, and it is extremely unfortunate. Since I would consider anyone who kills someone intentionally to be deserving of the death penalty anyway, I would consider the problem to not be that we are executing too many poor people, but that we are not executing enough wealthy people. My immediate solution is ban plea barganing, to make accepting a bribe in a capital case a capital crime, and something to take the lawyers out of the free market (Law should not be a private enterprise.) One way I would possibly do this is to have all state trial cases run by state lawyers, and to have the best lawyers conduct the most serious cases (On both sides.) I wouldn't normally trust the government to do something like this, but in this one instance the free market cannot handle it.
4) There is no method of execution yet devised which can pass the "cruel and unusual" test, which is part of US law.
"Cruel and Unusual" is proportional to the crime. Is life in prison cruel and unusual? Nope. Is life for shoplifting cruel and unusual? Yep.
In a murder case, I only think it can be cruel and unusual if it actively tortures the criminal. Even a public hanging does not do this, and yet it strikes fear into any wanna-be murderers.
5) All too often it is used to get rid of undesirable members of society, like in totalitarian countries like China. Allowing it in functioning democracies just removes any chance we have of protesting against this barbarity.
You have every right to protest capital punishment. I want people who murder executed, not the guy who wants to let the murderer live. Free speech and all that. The US has capital punishment, and protesting it is legal.
P.S. do not bother to reply to this as this is the last time ever that I will be responding to your know-nothing know-it-all brand of lunacy. Disagreements I can handle (it's simply part of life, like) but your mutilation of the facts and other people's arguements and words to fit your very warped world-view ("I'm Dommy3K, I'm always right, anyone who disagrees with me is not just wrong but a spawn of satan") is so far beyond the pale that I will no longer counternance.
Please chill with the insults. I do not pretend to know everything, or to consider those who disagree with me the Spawn of Satan. And I do not appreciate insults. Debate without them please.
