The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

1st degree murder. Capital Murder. Why am I concerned with image? If we gave murderers 2 years, we'd show the world exactly what we think of taking an innocent life, making us look braindead. Image is definitely a concern. If your homosexual son beat the shit out of a dog and you told him "no ice cream", you don't think your punishment produces a certain statement?

And again with the red herring. The legal authority in a democracy is based on elected officials. This isn't a totalitarian regime. Finally, revenge would be me killing someone that killed someone. Justice would be a thorough fact finding legal process, where all avenues are discussed and dissected, and we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt who the perpetrator is. Hardly the same thing unless you really are opposed to making moral distinctions.

One could argue that if a person has shown that they are capable of committing murder then it is irresponsible to allow them to live and risk the possibility that they will murder again.

Originally posted by Nephthys
One could argue that if a person has shown that they are capable of committing murder then it is irresponsible to allow them to live and risk the possibility that they will murder again.

That goes without saying. It's implied in my "an innocent person may be killed in prison so we shouldn't imprison anyone" scenario.

If your homosexual son beat the shit out of a dog and you told him "no ice cream", you don't think your punishment produces a certain statement?

Maybe he was talking to me. In which case its an understandable assumption to make.

Originally posted by steveholt245
1st degree murder. Capital Murder. Why am I concerned with image? If we gave murderers 2 years, we'd show the world exactly what we think of taking an innocent life, making us look braindead. Image is definitely a concern. If your homosexual son beat the shit out of a dog and you told him "no ice cream", you don't think your punishment produces a certain statement?

And again with the red herring. The legal authority in a democracy is based on elected officials. This isn't a totalitarian regime. Finally, revenge would be me killing someone that killed someone. Justice would be a thorough fact finding legal process, where all avenues are discussed and dissected, and we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt who the perpetrator is. Hardly the same thing unless you really are opposed to making moral distinctions.

2 years would be ridiculous. But why kill them? Life in jail without parole in a maximum prison would keep them out of society, would keep potential innocent blood off our hands, and would deprive the state, judge, jury, and anyone of having the power to kill. And I don't care who the legal authority to kill is coming from, I care about the legal authority to kill existing at all. And last I checked, no judge was elected. And I've never bought the justice argument, in any avenue. I would love it if society as whole just stopped using that word. Make the call for the thing that it really is: vengeance.

Originally posted by Nephthys
One could argue that if a person has shown that they are capable of committing murder then it is irresponsible to allow them to live and risk the possibility that they will murder again.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
and anyone of having the power to kill.

Yeah, because no-one gets killed in prison. :I

Originally posted by Nephthys
Yeah, because no-one gets killed in prison. :I

Other prisoners.

So your point?

Prisons don't stop people from having the power to kill. Execution does, which is probably why its reserved for high-risk of repeating criminals such as serial killers etc.

I mean, you can't just lock a serial killer up, don't let him go out unescorted and expect the problem to go away. Thats crazy.

Silky smoooooth seq-way......

I assume you mean "don't let him out in to the prison yard unescorted?" With a serial killer, the guys with the addiction to killing? No you lock them up in isolation for the rest of their life.

I was actually making a Dexter reference.

It must be from an earlier season, I haven't seen them in a while.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien

2 years would be ridiculous. But why kill them? Life in jail without parole in a maximum prison would keep them out of society, would keep potential innocent blood off our hands, and would deprive the state, judge, jury, and anyone of having the power to kill. And I don't care who the legal authority to kill is coming from, I care about the legal authority to kill existing at all. And last I checked, no judge was elected. And I've never bought the justice argument, in any avenue. I would love it if society as whole just stopped using that word. Make the call for the thing that it really is: vengeance.

Originally posted by steveholt245
Obviously you've never seen locked up before, where most of these criminals have a blast in jail. Why can they take a life and be allowed to live a normal live, albeit behind bars? And really, you're making my point for me. Someone in jail without the possibility of parole has nothing to lose. He can go on killing with no real repercussions. And the person he might kill may be an innocent person placed in jail, which would defeat the purpose of the jail system. Also, Judges ARE elected officials.

There are quite a few people in prison who will never be free again, how many of them have gone on killing sprees once in? Most murderers who are jailed aren't serial killers, people who need to kill, or raving lunatics--those guys need to be isolated from everyone. Most are in often for crimes of passion, profit, or gang-related. They want to live, and being surrounded by armed guards who will shoot to kill, or by other inmates who would gladly kill them back claiming defence, is a good deterrent. They also want their privileges. And you address another problem: normal lives. For the habitually criminal and dangerous offenders, I am certainly not in favour of giving them "normal" lives. But I am certainly not in favour of declaring it "ok" to end them.

ADDENDUM: I'll give you this though: someone convicted of murder and sentenced to life who escapes... kill 'em. Other than that, I want them to rot and suffer behind bars for as long possible. That's my preferential form of revenge. It's a tad ironic giving killers long lives, not as a means of rehab, or escape from death, but as a way of letting them corrode steadily, and alone, for decades (if they're not too old already). That's my idea of justice (read: revenge).

The problem I have with life sentences is that 1. As the global population increases the number life-sentence inmates will increase, and prison overpopulation is already becoming a problem. and 2. I don't like the idea of my tax dollars being used to support some criminal for the rest of his life.

Neither do I. But I'd rather pay the money to keep them alive, than grant authority to kill. The cost of their maintenance is a lot, but given the amount of wealth the Western nations produce, it's a drop in the bucket. The Ontario government just scrapped two gas plants at the cost of $230million+ in an effort to secure two local seats. Debts and deficits be damned, we throw money at worthless shit all the time--maintaining a prisoner is distasteful but I don't relish the alternative.

On the subject of money, from my understanding, it typically costs more to sentence an execution than it does to sentence an inmate to life in prison without parole.

Originally posted by ares834
On the subject of money, from my understanding, it typically costs more to sentence an execution than it does to sentence an inmate to life in prison without parole.

The report it cites says that the current (2011) system to be $137 million per year. While the estimated cost of incarceration instead of execution would be only $11.5 million.

This is a short essay about the costs, and opens with a mention of Ted Bundy, thus it's awesome.

And this little biased piece cites no stats, but is a quick Yes-No article on capital punishment.