Capital punishment.

[CassinoChips]

However, I do believe that having the death penalty can help reduce crime. Think about it- would someone be so less hesitant and ready to commit murder if he/she realises the price behind it? I believe so. It is a medium to help intimidate and drive some people against murdering others for whatever trivial reasons they have.

The problem is that it doesn't deter crime. If it were a deterrent, capital crimes would trend downward. And they're not. Also, you're applying rational thought to what is often an irrational act.

I am in Britain now, a country where the jails are so comfortable that inmates describe it as a "permanent holiday". They have luxuries in there fit for kings: plasma TVs, pool tables, games consoles, buffet meals- heck, I bet there's even a swimming pool somewhere! Think about the child killers that would be in these prisons, having the time of their lives.

Except for the part where you get anally raped. And "child killers" don't last long in prison. I have a hard time believing the British prisons are all that different from American prisons. And American prisons are not that nice of a place.

while the majority of the decent, law-abiding population MUST fork out money to fund these kind of absurdities! I feel sick to the stomach, knowing that I must pay money for some child killer and his paradise, when:

Again, you're forking out more money to conduct a capital murder trial than you are for housing a prisoner for a life sentence.

This is not justice! Life sentences mean nothing here! Someone can just walk free after whatever the number of years, and repeat their offence(s)! If they are killed, they can't be a danger ever again!

If you eliminate capital punishment, the max sentence becomes life without parole. They don't ever get the opportunity to "walk free." They will die in prison.

 

[Darth Ultor]

Capital punishment

What is your view on the death penalty? For most my life, I have supported it, but after taking criminal justice courses, I legally cannot under normal circumstances. There were many cases where an innocent person was executed. However, I do support it for war crimes and crimes against humanity. And to be honest, life imprisonment for some bastard who killed his wife or a child, life imprisonment is much worse. On death row, they're cut off from the general prison population, and there are appeals processes that take forever. Sometimes, there's even a moratorium placed on death sentences. It's crazy. However, when people are jailed from crimes against women or children, the other inmates tend to view them as the lowest of the low and take "justice" into their own hands.

 

[Shu]

- Threads Merged -

I'll give a more refined post on this when I have the time.. It takes a narrative just to get my views on this out there.

So for now I'll just leave as is, and come back and edit it.

 

[Gingerbread Lesbian]

I'd support it on certain cases such as paedophilia, rape and cold blooded murder. However, I don't think it would work unless jury standards became higher, I don't know how the legal system works in America or anywhere like that so I'm basing this solely on the British legal system.

I think juries would have to be abolished in capital punishment trials and sat by a panel of judges and/or other legal experts, simply because like any person does really, they could form a judgement before the facts are heard. Which could be down to their race, culture, gender etc. Furthermore, if there's sufficient evidence for them to be brought to court for a serious crime it could sway the juries' decision to guilty before the case is finished, especially if anyone knows a friend/family member who has been victim to the likes of rape.

Secondly, we'd have to raise our standards of law. The typical rule to find someone guilty is if the jury finds them guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" in which you cannot be prepared to have such low standards needed to take a life if there's even the smallest chance they aren't guilty.

As well as that, I think it depends on what the defendant personally feels. The death penalty isn't going to do a whole lot of good if they aren't bothered about dying in which imprisonment could be the worst thing for them regardless of the cost. However, I do agree on capital punishment for paedophilia, rape and cold blooded murder (as well as other crimes just as serious) as long as there's 99.9% certainty they did the crime and a panel of experts sit the trial.

 

[Darth Ultor]

Our legal system is based on English Common Law. We have due process, the presumption of innocence, etc.

[Mod Edit: Could you please put more effort in next time. This is a post count section and one liner posts are usually classed as spam. Thanks. =)]

 

[lreal]

Our legal system is based on English Common Law. We have due process, the presumption of innocence, etc.

Do you even know what the English common law is? Due process is a constitutional right and the presumption of innocence is part of determining the evidentiary standard required. Both have nothing to do with the common law.

I think juries would have to be abolished in capital punishment trials and sat by a panel of judges and/or other legal experts, simply because like any person does really, they could form a judgement before the facts are heard. Which could be down to their race, culture, gender etc. Furthermore, if there's sufficient evidence for them to be brought to court for a serious crime it could sway the juries' decision to guilty before the case is finished, especially if anyone knows a friend/family member who has been victim to the likes of rape.

People chosen for jury duty are cross examined by attorneys to determine whether or not they would be biased before the trial even takes place. Plus, I believe judges are allowed to overturn a jury verdict in the US if they find that the burden of proof wasn't met.

Secondly, we'd have to raise our standards of law. The typical rule to find someone guilty is if the jury finds them guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" in which you cannot be prepared to have such low standards needed to take a life if there's even the smallest chance they aren't guilty.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty high standard. This is analogous to "certainty that the crime was committed" or "there is no reasonable doubt that the person may actually be innocent."

As well as that, I think it depends on what the defendant personally feels. The death penalty isn't going to do a whole lot of good if they aren't bothered about dying in which imprisonment could be the worst thing for them regardless of the cost.

Courts don't have time to determine how a person feels about the death penalty or what a person is most afraid of. I think it is safe to assume that many actually don't enjoy the prospect of dying.

The death penalty is used a means of deterrence (keep others from doing it and keep the criminal from doing it again), a form of indefinite incapacitation (keep the criminal out of society), and retribution (give him what he deserves). Sure some innocents may be convicted; however, this is what happens since the legal system isn't perfect.

 

[Gingerbread Lesbian]

People chosen for jury duty are cross examined by attorneys to determine whether or not they would be biased before the trial even takes place. Plus, I believe judges are allowed to overturn a jury verdict in the US if they find that the burden of proof wasn't met.

Ours are just asked if they know the defendant, something along those lines anyway, I don't think any cultural, gender bias or anything are cross examined over here (certainly not vigorously), then again I haven't studied juries in a while. The problem with overturning verdicts, certainly over here, is that it takes a hell of a long time and money especially since the appeals will most likely bypass the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeals and go directly to the House of Lords, and their members are probably busy doing other things like claiming expenses.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty high standard. This is analogous to "certainty that the crime was committed" or "there is no reasonable doubt that the person may actually be innocent."

With any "normal" crime then I'd completely agree but I think regarding capital punishment as the punishment then there'd have to be absolute certainty without any doubt, problem being that would be extremely difficult to prove in most cases.

Courts don't have time to determine how a person feels about the death penalty or what a person is most afraid of. I think it is safe to assume that many actually don't enjoy the prospect of dying.

The death penalty is used a means of deterrence (keep others from doing it and keep the criminal from doing it again), a form of indefinite incapacitation (keep the criminal out of society), and retribution (give him what he deserves). Sure some innocents may be convicted; however, this is what happens since the legal system isn't perfect.

See, I sort of agree and know where you're coming from especially regarding the time and the assumption but I still don't think the death penalty is much of a punishment for certain crimes, mainly cold blooded murder and terrorism. Certainly with some murder cases, if people are still willingly prepared to commit it then I just don't see them being afraid of the punishment. Sure, give them the death penalty by all means but I don't think it is much of a punishment if they aren't bothered. Terrorism stretches the point a bit mind simply because they want it to happen to make a martyr out of them. (I think the latter paragraph in this post is just something we could debate on all day and still wouldn't completely agree with each other )

 

[GBJoker]

Read your god damn Bible. "Eye for an eye" is actually taken out of context from a line from some dude, maybe Jebus, saying that revenge is one of the worst things you can do. To use it as a metaphor for revenge is simply inaccurate.

I'm for the death penalty. Completely. Saves money. And yes, I'm more cold hearted than the devil. (Can his heart even be considered as "cold"?)

I could possibly compromise and go down to your third strike getting you the axe.

Also, a recent essay (that I need to find again), states that the guillotine should be brought back. Why? It's the most humane way to kill some one. What?! How?! Because of instant death, ie. no pain. Okay, maybe a split second, but barely long enough for the information of "pain" to be sent from your neck to the correct parts of your brain, and then for your brain to interpret it.

 

[CassinoChips]

I'm for the death penalty. Completely. Saves money.

No, it doesn't. As I've previously shown in this thread.

"The average cost of defending a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought. A study found that those defendants whose representation was the least expensive, and thus who received the least amount of attorney and expert time, had an increased probability of receiving a death sentence. Defendants with less than $320,000 in terms of representation costs (the bottom 1/3 of federal capital trials) had a 44% chance of receiving a death sentence at trial. On the other hand, those defendants whose representation costs were higher than $320,000 (the remaining 2/3 of federal capital trials) had only a 19% chance of being sentenced to death. Thus, the study concluded that defendants with low representation costs were more than twice as likely to receive a death sentence.

Office of Defender Services of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, "Update on Cost, Quality, and Availability of Defense Representation in Federal Death Penalty Cases," June 2008; prepared by Jon Gould and Lisa Greenman."

.... as well as....

Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice


“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.​

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.​

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.​

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.​

Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, June 30, 2008). "

 

[GBJoker]

No, it doesn't. As I've previously shown in this thread.

"The average cost of defending a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought. A study found that those defendants whose representation was the least expensive, and thus who received the least amount of attorney and expert time, had an increased probability of receiving a death sentence. Defendants with less than $320,000 in terms of representation costs (the bottom 1/3 of federal capital trials) had a 44% chance of receiving a death sentence at trial. On the other hand, those defendants whose representation costs were higher than $320,000 (the remaining 2/3 of federal capital trials) had only a 19% chance of being sentenced to death. Thus, the study concluded that defendants with low representation costs were more than twice as likely to receive a death sentence.

Office of Defender Services of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, "Update on Cost, Quality, and Availability of Defense Representation in Federal Death Penalty Cases," June 2008; prepared by Jon Gould and Lisa Greenman."

.... as well as....

Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice


“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.​

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.​

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.​

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.​

Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, June 30, 2008). "

Unfortunately, I'm one of those people who does believe punishment deters crime. The less crime, the less trials.

I also believe that you should never give a criminal a second chance, but that's more philosophy than economics.

 

[CassinoChips]

Unfortunately, I'm one of those people who does believe punishment deters crime. The less crime, the less trials.

Capital punishment doesn't deter crime. There is no discernible difference in the rate of capital crimes between states with the death penalty and those without.

"For decades, murder has been more common in states with capital punishment than in those where it is not used. Data from 1973 to 1984 show that murder rates in the states without the death penalty were consistently lower and averaged only 63% of the corresponding rates in the states retaining it."​

"In 1935 Robert Dann published an analysis of homicides in Philadelphia during 60 days before and 60 days after five highly publicized executions. Dann argued that the deterrent effect of the executions should result in lower homicide rates during the post-execution periods. The result was the opposite; rates were higher than usual."


"In light of the massive amount of evidence before us, I see no alternative
but to conclude that capital punishment cannot be justified on the basis of its deterrent effect."
Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court,​

Furman v. Georgia,

1972
​

 

[Uber Reaper]

Yes I believe in capital punishment. First, you can't risk a 'serious' prisoner busting out of prison. And I just think life imprisonment isn't enough for the most serious and violent criminals and a death penalty would also set an example to others about what you get if you become someone just like them.

 

[Black Butler]

I had a debate on that in english class,I support it only for killing terrorists and criminals,I heard that they do that in Britain,that colony must be a strict place.All cuz of the king or other authorities.

 

[Donald Trump]

Yes I believe in capital punishment. First, you can't risk a 'serious' prisoner busting out of prison.

Prisoners who commit armed robbery are pretty serious. That's why prisons are graded, no one has escaped from a Maximum security prison in the US, and I suspect numbers are similar in other parts of the world.
People that escape from prison are generally dangerous no matter what offence they've committed.

I also believe that you should never give a criminal a second chance, but that's more philosophy than economics.

Criminals or killers?
Because the more rehabilitated criminals there are in society earning money the less tax you pay, in theory at least. You'll probably pay the same, but the government will have more revenue, some of which they'll spend on roads, healthcare etc etc and you receive some of the benefits.

 

[Rydia]

My opinion may be a little limited. A lot of what I come across in debates at schools is whether or not it is ok to kill a criminal and not so much the cost.

Do I think it is ok to kill someone who has committed atrocious crimes? Yes definently. I have no sympathy for these kinds of people. Especially the one who openly admit it and show absolutely no remorse afterwards.

And what I mean by atrocious crimes are violent murders, multiple murders, violent rape, and in some cases pedophilia (though for the last, those guys typically get far worse in jail).

Also I'd worry about the possibility of being released. At least in Ohio, the jails are over crowded because who ever the hell decides where the money goes was a dick and shut down a jail because something that he was for did not pass. So because of lack of space, criminals are being released right back onto the streets. (However, I doubt or at least hope that they wouldn't release someone too viscious.)

 

[Darth Ultor]

I have to say that it's a shame that the International Court doesn't execute people anymore, because I feel certain individuals deserve it. Like the perpetrators of the Rwanda Massacre. I would say the same for the late Milosevic's cronies, but that war was too complicated for me to really take sides. Neither side had clean slates in the conflict.

 

[lreal]

With any "normal" crime then I'd completely agree but I think regarding capital punishment as the punishment then there'd have to be absolute certainty without any doubt, problem being that would be extremely difficult to prove in most cases.

How is this different from the current standard of proof? If you are suggesting that any doubt, which includes the unreasonable doubt, should not allow a conviction, that's too outlandish a proposition. Even if it's a doubt, there needs to be some reason behind it or it's just an arbitrary notion.

Read your god damn Bible. "Eye for an eye" is actually taken out of context from a line from some dude, maybe Jebus, saying that revenge is one of the worst things you can do. To use it as a metaphor for revenge is simply inaccurate.

You should take your own advice and go read the Old Testament.


To be honest, I think capital punishment is alive today through society's severe condemnation for certain egregious acts against humanity. People can talk deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, etc... but it's just cold vengeance by a society that finds certain acts too repulsive to be allowed any other form of justice.

 

[Shu]

Alright I'll finally give my point of view and I won't use law or biblical or religious reference I'll use moral reference.

For the longest time, I've really never even thought to question it. Though now a days I wonder why most people question it due to their moral standards and their thoughts of "revenge."

For me the whole revenge thing isn't cutting it. If a rapist rapes a person, and then proceeds to finish the person off, how can we even put this person in a day of prison? If there is no doubt, on who did what.. and the person is totally convicted even before the right to trial. I'm sorry I see no good in keeping this person alive. The absence of humanity was in this act. There is no way to show an eye for an eye even. I would think just a quick death would suit this person well.

Same thing goes for people who do things to children. Let's think.. innocence crushed at one little act. I don't see any good for these people. It sickens me.. so in conclusion, I think Capital Punishment is a must.. but I hate the fact that when the case is completely 100% convicted.. that people get life in prison. I don't see eye to eye with it at all.

 

[lreal]

Alright I'll finally give my point of view and I won't use law or biblical or religious reference I'll use moral reference.

For the longest time, I've really never even thought to question it. Though now a days I wonder why most people question it due to their moral standards and their thoughts of "revenge."

For me the whole revenge thing isn't cutting it. If a rapist rapes a person, and then proceeds to finish the person off, how can we even put this person in a day of prison? If there is no doubt, on who did what.. and the person is totally convicted even before the right to trial. I'm sorry I see no good in keeping this person alive. The absence of humanity was in this act. There is no way to show an eye for an eye even. I would think just a quick death would suit this person well.

All that it seems like you are saying is, "I think people who do bad things should die simply because they did a bad thing."


How do you determine if something is bad? Where is your justification for such a mentality?

Could you be a bit more explicit with your point? I don't really see anything there other than your dislike of rapists and child abusers.

 

[Shu]

All that it seems like you are saying is, "I think people who do bad things should die simply because they did a bad thing."


How do you determine if something is bad? Where is your justification for such a mentality?

Could you be a bit more explicit with your point? I don't really see anything there other than your dislike of rapists and child abusers.

1) Skimming doesn't help.

2) I said they lack any humanity in the action, as in complete animalistic drive, hince should be put down like a rabid dog. These "two" actions are never negotiable in my head, because Ireal, you are right.. "they are bad people based off opinion. "

3) Justifications will always be opinion based in this thread hince it is not a very arguable controversial topic, because both sides will always think they are right, hince all my stuff is opinionated.

4) Show me a non opinionated post, aside from what CC posted about the expenses it costs to put people down, then I'll answer those questions. Also backing this with religion is invalid. So I'll ask you to stay away from religious references.

5) Keeping this short and sweet, because this is just like a religion thread in which has no resolves.