-

boxwine_in_hell

DinghyDog wrote:

why i am against the death penalty.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20911FE355B0C708CDDAC0894DE404482&fta=y&incamp=archive:article_related

String em up, fry em up, shoot em up. Go Death Penalty!

RainDog

miller8966 wrote:

Its not immoral at all.

You don't think it's immoral getting your rocks off over someone's death?

even flow?

So if you have the right person but don't have the death penalty. Why should that person have better treatment with my tax dollar then most nursing homes, kid shelters and what not.

Homeless people should look into commiting a felony, a big enough one to land them in the clink at least during the winter months. They would get access to free education, three free square meals a day, an exercise room, t.v., computer use. Look at the perks. And then people wouldn't squawk about the bums who can't help themselves. Or living off of their tax dollar.

Cuntified C

I have never agreed with the death penalty. Never. I much prefer to see a murderer rot in jail for the rest of their miserable life than just get volted or gased or whatever. I think that if an innocent but found guilty man gets the death penalty all the more unjustified. Think Tookie Williams. I also tend to think that there is a lot of underhand dealings going on when it comes to the death penalty. For instance, I believe that more black men get the death sentence than white men. I don't know if that is true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Who the hell would decide if a serial killer should get life, whilst another gets sentenced to death. Just seems wrong to me...

RainDog

even flow? wrote:

So if you have the right person but don't have the death penalty. Why should that person have better treatment with my tax dollar then most nursing homes, kid shelters and what not.

Homeless people should look into commiting a felony, a big enough one to land them in the clink at least during the winter months. They would get access to free education, three free square meals a day, an exercise room, t.v., computer use. Look at the perks. And then people wouldn't squawk about the bums who can't help themselves. Or living off of their tax dollar.

An O'Henry fan, huh?

Due to the appeals process here, it's actually more expensive to execute someone than to put them in prison for the rest of their lives.

miller8966

RainDog wrote:

You don't think it's immoral getting your rocks off over someone's death?

im not getting my rocks off, but it shouldnt be illegal.

Collin

miller8966 wrote:

im not getting my rocks off, but it shouldnt be illegal.

Again, I thought you were a Christian.

miller8966 wrote:

I want to see a murderer suffer the pain of death.

miller8966

Collin wrote:

Again, I thought you were a Christian.

I believe in jesus.

RainDog

miller8966 wrote:

I believe in jesus.

Who was executed by the State.

miller8966

RainDog wrote:

Who was executed by the State.

he had no problem with it.

Collin

miller8966 wrote:

I believe in jesus.

But not in his words?

RainDog

Cuntified C wrote:

I also tend to think that there is a lot of underhand dealings going on when it comes to the death penalty. For instance, I believe that more black men get the death sentence than white men. I don't know if that is true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

There are more whites on death row than blacks - and more whites have been executed since 1976 as well. But that's just in raw numbers. Percentage wise, blacks receive it far more regularly. It's "interesting" to note that 15 whites have been executed for murdering blacks between 1976 and 1990 while 213 blacks have been executed for murdering whites.

even flow?

RainDog wrote:

An O'Henry fan, huh?

Due to the appeals process here, it's actually more expensive to execute someone than to put them in prison for the rest of their lives.

I am aware of that.

I was just pointing out that without the death penalty but having still committed a violent crime. They are treated on the tax dollar better than old people in a nursing home who's only crime has been getting old and not being able to fend for themselves anymore. I know that they are supposed to rehabiltate in prison. But I just don't think that most people who commit violent crimes that are thought out can be helped to the point that they wouldn't do it again.

RainDog

miller8966 wrote:

he had no problem with it.

You've got to be kidding me. Even by Biblical accounts, Jesus begged God to stop his execution. He accepted it - but he certainly had problems with it as well.

RainDog

even flow? wrote:

I am aware of that.

I was just pointing out that without the death penalty but having still committed a violent crime. They are treated on the tax dollar better than old people in a nursing home who's only crime has been getting old and not being able to fend for themselves anymore. I know that they are supposed to rehabiltate in prison. But I just don't think that most people who commit violent crimes that are thought out can be helped to the point that they wouldn't do it again.

I'm not so sure they're treated better than old people in nursing homes, but I get what you're saying. To me, though, the nursing home issue is an entirely different problem and not really comparable.

As for rehabilitation, that's certainly not the issue with violent offenders who receive the death penalty. Were we to ban the death penalty, we'd simply leave these people in the hole for the rest of their lives. Once you hit a certain "level" in your crimes, there's no going back. They're out of society, in a maximum security prison (not at all like some kind of resort), and they'll never see the light of day again. I don't know what killing them adds to it, other than a sense of vengence on the part of the audience.

Hell, why not bring back the guillotine? As gory and offensive as it is to the audience, it's likely more humane to the prisoner.

PJPOWER

I am against sending people to life in prison. At least when they are dead, tax payers aren't paying for them for the next 60 years. I took a criminology class my senior year in college and was amazed at the costs of housing them, especially once they get old and needy. Some of them I interviewed in prison said they would rather be dead anyway, so...............?

miller8966

The death penalty is fine how it is. Let the states that want it have it.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

RainDog wrote:

I know it wasn't exactly the example you used, but when you wrote "it's not fair to the victim" I also took it to mean that if we don't allow for the death penalty, it's not fair to those who want the person to die - many of whom would love to execute the individual themselves.

I see what you mean, but the justice system is strictly for the victim and the accused...no one else. So other people who would like to kill the accused shouldn't factor into deciding what is fair and what is not for the victim and the accused.

RainDog wrote:

I agree. However, by everyone's standards it is immoral and unjust to execute an innocent person - and it's a punishment that can't be reversed. Jailing an innocent person, while certainly not good, can be. So, if you ask me, I think it's a perfectly good example of why it's immoral and unjust - it just so happens that it's also related to a flaw in the system.

Now, if you ask me, I say it's immoral and unjust all the time. Now I think we need to convince other people - and if they come to the same conclusion for different reasons, I'm O.K. with that.

I would say it's unjust to execute an innocent person, but like you said...it'd be unjust to punish an innocent person in any manner. But when we talk about jail time for stealing a car, we don't take into consideration the possibility of that person being innocent...and we shouldn't for the death penalty either. You can't reverse putting someone to death, but you also can't reverse putting them through years of prison either. Yeah, you can take them out of prison, but that's not exactly reversing what they've already gone through (which is no picnic obviously). So it's not so black & white....and that's exactly why we shouldn't focus on human error in the justice system when discussing punishments. We should focus on what is moral and just, and THEN discuss how we can take measures to prevent mistakes.

I'm not saying that the possibility of killing innocents isn't a valid reason for being against the death penalty, I'm just saying it shouldn't be the main reason. People seem to focus the debate on that a lot, and it just seems like the wrong way to think about the subject to me. I think the debate should focus on what is moral and just.

Uncle Leo

PJPOWER wrote:

I am against sending people to life in prison. At least when they are dead, tax payers aren't paying for them for the next 60 years. I took a criminology class my senior year in college and was amazed at the costs of housing them, especially once they get old and needy. Some of them I interviewed in prison said they would rather be dead anyway, so...............?

It's generally believed that it is more expensive to execute someone than keep them in jail for 50 years. Because of the appeals. Of course if we just dropped the appeal process, it would be cheaper--though innocent people would more likely be killed.

***

I have been for the death penalty most of my life. I believe that it is appropriate to put to death the committors of certain crimes. HOWEVER, I am against it because I would rather let all the murderers live in prison in order to make sure that not even one innocent person is put to death. The system is imperfect. Rarely do innocent people get convicted of felanies, but it has happened and will happen again. If a convicted murderer turns out to be innocent after 10 years, I'd rather let him out of prison, than have him already be dead...

RainDog

Saturnal wrote:

I'm not saying that the possibility of killing innocents isn't a valid reason for being against the death penalty, I'm just saying it shouldn't be the main reason. People seem to focus the debate on that a lot, and it just seems like the wrong way to think about the subject to me. I think the debate should focus on what is moral and just.

You're saying that we need to focus on whether or not capital punishment is moral. I'm giving an example of why it isn't. You're speaking broadly; I'm bringing up details. I don't see where the discrepancy is.

I mean, if you ask someone if they think the death penalty is moral, he or she will answer "yes" or "no." What's the immediate follow up question?

"Why?"