Hello Everyone, I feel that death penalty is a successful and reasonable way to rid this world of heinous criminals. What do you think?
We have killed innocent people before. Life of enslavement is a better plan. And all profits of enslavement go towards victims or society if victims cannot be awarded. Also, if proven innocent, you don't have to explain to a relative that you accidentally killed a member of their family. Limit appeals to only occur if there is new evidence or testimony. This kills legal expense. Now you'll have a slave legion to work for the common man. If they will not work, then do not feed them - they are the author of their own death that way.
Agree, but it should be reserved for persistent repeat offenders (career criminals) who will almost certainly never be rehabilitated anyway.
I see little point in letting a guy rape several women before he is discarded from society, Let's not allow career criminals, One, maybe two strikes and your out when it comes to heinous stuff. Misdemeanors would be most effectively dealth with corporal punishment. If you put the cruel and unusual back into punishment, you probably won't need it as often.
You would reduse the marginal cost from committing additional crime to zero; thus creating perverse incentives (e.g. to reduce the risks of getting caught and tried, the rapist would have an incentive to kill their victims; the murderer will have an incentive to shoot policemen trying to catch them etc etc etc)
I see where you are coming from, but can you back up this claim with valid data? I am willing to meet you half way and say that criminals would certainly have more zeal in trying to get away with it, if you will concede that there would certainly be fewer of them. Why put up with more crime than you have to? And again, we don't have to kill them, we can put them to work for the rest of their life. If they want to kill themselves they certainly can.
See, for example, Ekelund et al (2006, Marginal Deterrence and Multiple Murders, Southern Economic Journal, Vol 72, pp 521-541), who are able to make a distinction between the death penalty's effects on single and multiple murders If you're interested in minimising crime then the punishment regime has to be based on marginal deterrence. This means a regime that doesn't introduce perverse incentives. The death penalty will typically generate such perverse incentives. In terms of deterrence theory, it therefore should be used sparingly (e.g. against cop killers)
I have no problem with the death penalty, some men just need killin, but I do see that there are far too many people that end up on death row because of lack of funds for good lawyers, level the playing field when it comes to death penalty cases and we are on the right track. - - - Updated - - - I have no problem with the death penalty, some men just need killin, but I do see that there are far too many people that end up on death row because of lack of funds for good lawyers, level the playing field when it comes to death penalty cases and we are on the right track.
Link please. I am not an advocate of the death penalty. I believe living is a better option. Corporal punishment for minor offenses I do support.
The American people would never stand for that. Its too barbaric and inhumane; for those who refuse to work, simply take away whatever priveledges they have or those who work should be given more priveledges.
Find it yourself. I reference the primary research. Never worked, except to pander to the warped preferences by the punishers. Anyway, made my point and I don't think you've got much to say so I'm off
I agree, and that is why it is unlikely for things to improve, when you have a serious problem, you need serious solution. I would wager that they just don't have the stomach for the solution. Good medicine can taste terrible.
Looked it up and found something interesting. But seriously, you may as well post the link if you are going to reference something for ease of access. Your argument is, well, not exactly addressing the right topic me thinks. You're right, it didn't deter multiple murders, it did deter singular murders. The point being that it did in fact reduce crime. Those who were going to do multiple murders were already on the list of people that are leaving society anyways. So why not deter a few more? Another thing to think about is this - I am not advocating the death penalty. I am actually quite against it unless there is zero doubt - like say it was done and caught on video proven to not be tampered with. And we are only debating heinous crimes, like rape, murder, torture, molestation and such. This report you cited is correct that a graduated set of punishments works for the sort of people commiting misdemeanors - "why steal $5 when you can steal %5 million" is how they put it for misdemeanors. But I must ask you something, why are police so special? What makes them more important than say children, or homosexuals? The victims birthright, profession, or whatever status they claim has zero relevance to the crime commited. The murderer could have just as easily killed a terminal cancer patient of 44 years old. If anything it should be based off the evil committed, not the victims adjective of choice. I suppose that we could make the stay in prison a variable based upon how heinous the crime is then? Some prisons would have access to nicer facilities, others may get a bucket to crap in. I suppose it could work. Got a source to back that claim up? Works in the USMC, seen it in action. But anectdotal evidence is not the strongest nor the most convincing either. Don't post and run, prove your point.
What about the fact that we spend millions in tax money to keep these prisoners alive? Three meals a day in a warm prison. Many people think that prison is a horrible place, and yeah it sucks to be put in there, but it's not really a horrible place to be. In fact it's kind of nice. I was a reporter and covered a story in a prison. They have classes, game rooms, TV when they want it, aren't even really cooped up in a cell. For those people who are given a lifelong sentence they are given a lifetime to sit and do what they want almost when they want, learn what they want, develop what skills they want, there are even leadership opportunities for inmates in prisons. We should save the tax money we spend to keep life sentenced prisoners, and use the death penalty on repeated heinous crimes doers. The tax money could be put to many better things. Like paying our debt. Not to mention our prisons are being overfilled as it is. How Much Tax Money Goes to Prisons? Of the billions of dollars of tax revenue that are collected each year in taxes, about $37 billion are spent on the prisons alone. There are more than 2 million inmates currently in the US prison system.
I have mixed views on the death penalty. I believe those who commit evil should be killed however the system is very flawed. I lean oppose I guess but im not sure.
No system is perfect. And we have also let guilty people go. People rarely look at the other side when complaining about the rare incidents of innocent executions.
I think the death penalty is barbaric and sickening, and its unbelievable that so many Americans are in favor of it, but I am not surprised, given the fact that your country acts like a dictatorship, ie; starting wars What about the innocent people who have been killed? - - - Updated - - - It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent person.
You're talking about a tiny proportion of the prison population though so even assuming you could find a way to make the death penalty process itself less expensive, the financial savings would be minimal. Of course, if your primary focus is saving money, you could kill people for much less serious offences, maybe even going for Judge Dread style street executions to cut down the costs even further. I'd suggest that a much bigger cost to a nation (certainly as a whole or quite possibly per-capita) are all the minor criminals who go through the revolving door of repeated short sentences. Both financially and socially, I think there is much more to gain from focusing efforts on them.
It doesn't stop other people from committing the ver y same crime however, thus illustrated by the USA's prison statistics. So it is very ineffective in preventing crime.
The death penalty is a great way for society to ignore the underlying issues of that society. Stupid and ignorant societies like to ignore these issues, intelligent societies investigate them with the view of reducing the issues.
Progressives feel that abortion is a successful and reasonable way to rid this world of unwanted fetuses. Imagine if heinous criminals were executed in the same way that fetuses (who never did anything wrong) are routinely terminated. Mutilated into a purée while they are still alive.
I do not agree with you, but whatever you're entitled to your own opinion. We should each be able to set the "law" on our own property as a condition of entry. Nobody could complain about punishment because they agreed to the terms in the first place.
Its interesting that you feel it is a successful punishment, ever looked at the crime stats of the USA compared to a country with no death penalty http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime Looking at that I'd say your death penalty doesn't work at all as a deterrent.
That's not a useful comparison, given its not possible to control for the other variables that impact on homicide rates. It is safe to say that there are multiple papers that find deterrence effects. There are three problems. First, there are issues of omitted variable bias (e.g. the exclusion of social variables can increase the likelihood of finding significant deterrence effects). Second, there is confusion over the impact of marginal deterrence (with the creation of multiple murders possible, but difficult to assess within a basic empirical specification). Third, there is evidence that deterrence is related to brutality (and then there are issues that such brutality cheapens the value of life such that crime inducing effects can eventually)
Not if you're the person who got victimized by the guilty person that got let go. Where is your justice? Are you just expected to shrug it off and get over it? What do you say to someone who has been through that? "Sorry your family member got killed. But (*)(*)(*)(*) happens." I don't believe for a moment that you would be so cavalier about this if you were the victim here, Mak. I think you would do an about face so quickly it would make people's heads spin. You have the luxury of having never been through that, so you can pretend to be as compassionate as you want. Because it's all just empty, ivory tower theory to you. But I doubt that the families of the people killed in the Aurora movie massacre last year would share your opinion.
