The Death Penalty and Illinois

[Pillager]

Originally posted by Switch625


Not really. One of the pro-death penalty arguments is that it's "cheaper than keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives." I kid you not. RM's simply stating the counter-argument. That it does, in fact, cost MORE to go through the due process required of a death penalty case than it does to keep a person on ice for 20-50 some-odd years.

If it means one more person is opposed to the death penalty, then I'm not going to complain about it.

I think that that cost is based on the American dp process, which, frankly, is a total mess.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

One is very much in favour of the death penalty, for a whole range of crimes and offences.
It needn't cost as much as it does; it should not be made into a perverse circus. A simple swift trial and single bullet to the back of the head is what one advocates. The US death penalty process is rather a mess, as Pillager suggests, but it is not the only model.

 

[knowltok2]

As I have stated many times in the past, I am against the death penalty. Call me a capitalist too, but it is for the cost as well. I should say the cost-benefit analysis. It costs a ton and does nothing (or very, very little) to deter further crime in society.

I am not opposed to it on moral grounds, and in fact believe that there are plenty of people who deserve to die. I also think that the DP could be an effective detterent to other criminals if it was widened in its application, and the process was sped up. I am a realist though, and I realize that this is never going to happen in our society.

What I am left with is a situation that looks like this: We are paying a bunch of money for a process that isn't returning the results we require. We cannot fix it and make it better, so we might as well scrap it.

Now I know that many supporters would argue that at least the criminal in question will never commit the crime again, and or that they deserve to have their life taken. I agree, but just don't see the costs as worth it. Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't shed any tears when one of these murderers is sent to the gas chamber.

 

[Switch625]

Knowltok is pretty close to my views on the death penalty, except that I oppose it not because of cost, but because of the risk of executing innocent people. There are plenty of criminals I feel should be taken out of the gene pool. Those vicious thugs that Curt talked about are a waste of good oxygen and should be beaten, sodomized and then run over by a train. But, I can't reconcile my desire for vengeance against the risk of taking an innocent life by the government. It has happened. Numerous times. You can't just brush that off as a "mistake." It's murder, pure and simple.

 

[bobgote]

I think they should take all the convicts that would usually get the death penalty, and put them in an arena where they fight it out gladiator style. the winner gets a life imprisonment, and goes in as the champ at the next "games" It could make back the money it loses in the justice system with ticket sales. Everyone wins.

 

[JoeM]

Originally posted by bobgote
I think they should take all the convicts that would usually get the death penalty, and put them in an arena where they fight it out gladiator style. the winner gets a life imprisonment, and goes in as the champ at the next "games" It could make back the money it loses in the justice system with ticket sales. Everyone wins.

How enlightened! I think you need a in there somwhere.

And you could hang various weapons around the arena. Maybe karaoke theme nights too.

Two men enter one man leaves!
Two men enter one man leaves!

 

[JoeM]

Originally posted by Switch625
There are plenty of criminals I feel should be taken out of the gene pool.

Careful your not implying a genetic predisposition for criminal behaviour

Originally posted by Switch625
...the risk of taking an innocent life by the government. It has happened. Numerous times. You can't just brush that off as a "mistake." It's murder, pure and simple.

I think the recent film adaptation of Minority Report addressed this issue very well, though maybe not it's primary message. Do you continue a system that you know will punish the guilty adequately but also harm a lesser number of innocents?

I agree with Switch625's point of view, here in the UK the same debate comes up every few years over whether the last man (Hanratty) or the last woman(Ellis) hanged (a person is always hanged, not hung) were innocent or not - that's how guilty our consciences are, it was in 1962 and 55 respectively.

I know that there is no system that guarantees we do not convict everyone who is innocent, so I'd rather have their imprisonment on my conscience than state sponsored murder.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by JoeM


Careful your not implying a genetic predisposition for criminal behaviour

here in the UK the same debate comes up every few years over whether the last man (Hanratty) or the last woman(Ellis) hanged (a person is always hanged, not hung) were innocent or not - that's how guilty our consciences are, it was in 1962 and 55 respectively.

When I was at university I had an argument with a lecturer of an anarcho-socialistic disease. He was convinced that Hanratty was as innocent and pure as the driven snow (his words) - this lecturer had a real bee in his bonnet about the British Justice system due to the small number of black lesbian single mothers. (He wasn't prejudiced against the white middle class, oh no I'm sure it was nothing to do with the fact that he was a criminal in his youth.

Then the news came through of the genetic tests confirming Hanratty's guilt. Oh, how I laughed.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by JoeM


(a person is always hanged, not hung)

The use of 'hung' should be a hanging offence.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by bobgote
I think they should take all the convicts that would usually get the death penalty, and put them in an arena where they fight it out gladiator style. the winner gets a life imprisonment, and goes in as the champ at the next "games" It could make back the money it loses in the justice system with ticket sales. Everyone wins.

Sounds like "The Running Man."

 

[jpowers]

There is a difference between the death penalty and the implementation of the death penalty. I see little wrong with executing mass murderers, serial rapists, genocidal leaders etc. However, the burden of proof should be as extreme as the penalty.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm against the death penalty for many good reasons. Most importantly is the 28% error rate. When 2 in 7 convictions are overturned due to questionable practices, it is time to take a step back from execution, lest we kill someone who didn't do it.

As Gandalf said to Frodo:
There are many now dead who deserve life, can you give it to them? Then be not so quick to hand out death.

(Or something like that.)

In the rare cases where the convicted is unquestionably guilty as sin (like videotape, confession, massive amounts of physical evidence, motive that would drive a nun to kill, and opportunity that a saint couldn't pass up) I can live with it. But those are the exceptional cases, not the rule.

 

[Cloudyvortex]

I can't believe. Actually, I can. Fangle and Sharpe agree on an issue and they argue over semantics. Since when has motive been an issue?

I think the whole system needs to be redone. The issue should be weighed then.

 

[CurtSibling]

It has been said before elsewhere,
But sometimes with punishment the innocent suffer...and that is unacceptable...I agree.

The blame lies with the police investagative conduct, not with the punishment dealt...

But when the evidence cannot be challenged,
when you have a serial killer/rapist/violent robber,
My humble opinion is that our societies monsters should get it.

Ask a mother who has lost her children,
A child who loses her mother or a man whose wife is killed?

Do they have faith in the social workers or the criminal's rehab?

No way.

A bit of rope and a rafter do not cost much money.

Rapists, murderers?

Hang em' high.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Ask a mother who has lost her children,
A child who loses her mother or a man whose wife is killed?

Do they have faith in the social workers or the criminal's rehab?

To be fair, I don't think anyone around here who is expressing a position against the DP is suggesting that instead these people should get anything less than life in prison with no chance of parole.

I for one would like to see them sent off to remote, harsh condition labor camps with very few of the comforts of modern society. There to work for most of their existence and eventually die of some natural cause.

 

[joespaniel]

Its not that easy. Even-tempered juries and prosecuters have been fooled by seemingly concrete evidence, and sent innocent people to death row.

The death penalty should just be abolished, period.

I think prison labor should be brought back though. How did we ever get away from that?
Make them "earn" the cost of their own incarceration by making a product or service, and donate the excess to charity.

 

[Ming]

Until we can read minds, and be 100% sure...

Yeah... hard labor camps sound great. Maybe even a coal mine.

 

[EdwardTking]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I'm against capital punishment, simply because it costs too much. The total cost is usually at least a few million dollars, ranging from 2-5 (as I've read.) It's not worth the cost.

Umm .. I don't think SH has this out of control cost problem.

I am in favour of the death penalty for murder and treason.
I have three main reasons.

(1) If the Weimar Republic had hung Hitler for treason after his 1923 failed Munich coup; there would have been 40 million less dead in Europe. And you know what Sliobham Miloselvitch is doing what Hitler did, turning his trial into a political campaign.

(2) A bank teller (being robbed) or a citizen (being mugged) or a woman (being raped) should be able to decline that; knowing and telling the assailant that if the assailant presses on and they are murdered and the assailant is caught; the assailant will be executed. Abolishing capital punishment leaves them vulnerable.
Incidentally I am not in favour of capital punishment for rape because I think it provides the callous rapist with a no additional penalty motive for murdering his victim to prevent her testifying.

(3) Since they abolished the death penalty; the number of murders has soared in England. It is difficult to find out how many murders there actually are because the politicians mix in murder with other crimes in the official statistics so that the people who vote for them won't realise they have lost control.

By the way; I recognise my opponents in this debate who argue against capital punishment as having reputable reasons too.

 

[JoeM]

I just found out that the death penalty has been revoked in the UK. Until 1998 you could still be slain by the state for Treason or Piracy.

It was one of my favourite laws for hypothesizing ridiculous situations.

 

[MrPresident]

If the Weimar Republic had hung Hitler for treason after his 1923 failed Munich coup

If the Weimar Republic had given his life in prisonment the same result would have been achieved. Although I do not like what if... scearnios, especially when they are used in debates to try and prove a point.

I just found out that the death penalty has been revoked in the UK. Until 1998 you could still be slain by the state for Treason or Piracy.

I thought it still exists for high treason.

A bank teller (being robbed) or a citizen (being mugged) or a woman (being raped) should be able to decline that; knowing and telling the assailant that if the assailant presses on and they are murdered and the assailant is caught; the assailant will be executed.

This is ridicilous reasoning. If the assailant continues then they obviously don't think they will be caught and so no punishment would be a deterant.

the number of murders has soared in England.

We haven't seriously had the death penalty for years before it was abolished. And secondly, there are way too many factors to be considered. And thirdly, take a look through history and find an era when there were dracionan laws (1600s for example) and see what level crime was at.

Yeah... hard labor camps sound great. Maybe even a coal mine.

That's slavery and we got rid of slavery a long time ago.

By the way; I recognise my opponents in this debate who argue against capital punishment as having reputable reasons too.

I'm not sure why you put this in. Only a fool would believe that they are 100% right with the other side having no reputable reasons whatsoever.