Civilised Countries do not have the death penalty? · General Discussion Forum

Newjak I am Beyond Power

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said don't look into things, etc. But there is a problem if we have no other recourse but FOUR retrials. Count them: four.
This woman admitted to killing her kid, not under any type of duress that was made apparent. She also never said she had a confession forced out of her. In fact, she maintained her "I did it" thing throughout each trial, that never changed.

My problem with this line of thinking it ends up being well if the death penalty is more expensive we have to do something to make it cheaper therefore we are going to try and limit someone's ability to fight their death sentence.

I think finding the appropriate criteria to forgo lengthy appeals is hard. How much cheaper would it make the average death penalty cost because most things aren't black and white. If it only gets applied to a small % of the total death row populace does it really save us anything. It seems so messy with seriously little pay off to me.

Plus it doesn't solve the problem of innocents being executed. To me doing away with the death penalty seems the quicker, cheaper, and overall more accurate way to eliminate that potential problem.

psmith81992 Restricted

Plus it doesn't solve the problem of innocents being executed. To me doing away with the death penalty seems the quicker, cheaper, and overall more accurate way to eliminate that potential problem.

Again, if you're worried about innocents getting executed then don't put anyone in jail, because innocents could go to jail and get killed. That's not a reason. If it's an issue of taxpayer dollars, they need to shorten the appeals process. You don't need 20 years of appeals.

Bashar Teg Senior Mentat

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yea, I'm wondering if there's much correlation there. Who knows. At any rate, I'm not arguing about deterrence just thought I would bring it up.

there is no correlation to be presented and thus it's not a 'who knows' situation. however i do commend you for backing off of the point when many of your peers would have just last-word spammed the thread to avoid conceding.

psmith81992 Restricted

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
there is no correlation to be presented and thus it's not a 'who knows' situation. however i do commend you for backing off of the point when many of your peers would have just last-word spammed the thread to avoid conceding.

Well, for every one of my "peers", you get a nut like knife who believes the right wing control the media and everything else. I have more intelligence than that. The only good reason I've heard for ending the death penalty is cost. The 'innocent' argument isn't good enough. And cost could be reduced if the appeals process was expedited.

Newjak I am Beyond Power

Originally posted by psmith81992
Again, if you're worried about innocents getting executed then don't put anyone in jail, because innocents could go to jail and get killed. That's not a reason. If it's an issue of taxpayer dollars, they need to shorten the appeals process. You don't need 20 years of appeals.

You seem to be able to post well thought replies sometimes but this analogy doesn't work for me.

First off all an innocent person could be killed walking down the street. Also the odds of them getting killed in prison vs the odds of getting killed with a death sentence are not same.

Also people understand that sending an innocent person to jail is wrong but if you execute them then there is no chance to correct that error. If they did commit the crime then they are locked away at a danger to the general populace.

And yes some people do need 20 years worth of appeals before they are found innocent. People have been found innocent after longer than 20 years before.

psmith81992 Restricted

First off all an innocent person could be killed walking down the street. Also the odds of them getting killed in prison vs the odds of getting killed with a death sentence are not same.

You're right, they stand a far better chance getting killed in prison than sitting on death row for a decade. Thanks for pointing that out.

Also people understand that sending an innocent person to jail is wrong but if you execute them then there is no chance to correct that error. If they did commit the crime then they are locked away at a danger to the general populace.

Being in solitary doesn't negate the purpose of the death penalty. I think my analogy holds water, especially if there's a better chance of an innocent person getting shanked than sitting in solitary on death row for a decade.

And yes some people do need 20 years worth of appeals before they are found innocent. People have been found innocent after longer than 20 years before.

The % is so miniscule, it's not enough reason to get rid of the whole thing.

Newjak I am Beyond Power

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're right, they stand a far better chance getting killed in prison than sitting on death row for a decade. Thanks for pointing that out.
Being in solitary doesn't negate the purpose of the death penalty. I think my analogy holds water, especially if there's a better chance of an innocent person getting shanked than sitting in solitary on death row for a decade.
The % is so miniscule, it's not enough reason to get rid of the whole thing.

I'm sorry but I think you missed the point. Most people on death row die. You have much less chance of being killed in the general populace vs Death Row. You know becomes sadly more often than not death is always at the end of that appeals process.

So no statistically you are wrong. You are less likely to die in the general populace, much so, than being on death row where the end result is death most often.

What is the purpose of the death penalty again?

Knife Restricted

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm sorry but I think you missed the point. Most people on death row die. You have much less chance of being killed in the general populace vs Death Row. You know becomes sadly more often than not death is always at the end of that appeals process.
So no statistically you are wrong. You are less likely to die in the general populace, much so, than being on death row where the end result is death most often.
What is the purpose of the death penalty again?

He was being Sarcastic I think Newjak.

0mega Spawn TheWarmestSun

Only thing to deter these crimes is stricter movement within the jails and prisons themselves. Isolate everyone from everything.

Have you ever had to sit in a cell alone for long periods. It feels like that hyperbolic time chamber in dbz.
Minutes become hours, hours become days, day become weeks. So on and so forth. Couple that with some therapy. And I guarantee crime rates will drop

psmith81992 Restricted

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm sorry but I think you missed the point. Most people on death row die. You have much less chance of being killed in the general populace vs Death Row. You know becomes sadly more often than not death is always at the end of that appeals process.
So no statistically you are wrong. You are less likely to die in the general populace, much so, than being on death row where the end result is death most often.
What is the purpose of the death penalty again?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

No, I got the point. But if I'm on death row for 20 years, I have a better shot of extending my life those 20 years than being in general population. The purpose of the death penalty is to exact justice. Not that I care about the majority, but I'm actually still surprised the support for capital punishment is still nearly 2:1.

Have you ever had to sit in a cell alone for long periods. It feels like that hyperbolic time chamber in dbz.
Minutes become hours, hours become days, day become weeks. So on and so forth. Couple that with some therapy. And I guarantee crime rates will drop

The only evidence of the result of Ad Seg is more violence when the inmates have rec time or any time outside their cell.