capital punishment: the ultimate price?

Silver · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by DHRacer
as I stated above, yes there will be the occaisional innocent one I'm sure... but it's not a perfect world, and it's not a perfect system. it's a question of the lesser of two evils. you put to death 100 convicted murderers, 2 may be innocent 98 are cold, hard, ruthless people who don't give a rats ass... I don't see the problem in this. But maybe we should start letting all the bleeding hearts out there carry the burden... let's see how long that lasts?

Congrats! You've managed to turn the entire ideal of the US way of life on it's head. You sound like you'd be a great candiadate for the AG's office right now. I hear they are looking for go-getters who think the Bill of Rights is a commie blight on our great country.

I don't suppose you'd have a problem with your brother being one of the 2%? Or your best friend? I can't even begin to start explaining why this type of thinking is so supremely stupid.

Goddamit.

DHRacer · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by LordOpie
I was indirectly asking you to follow the logic of your arguement, but that was wrong of me to ask you to do that, so we move on...

sarcasm duly noted and forgetten.

Originally posted by LordOpie
(say, out of 100 found guilty) How many innocent people would it be ok to kill?

how many are you really going to find? ask any inmate in prison and they'll tell you they're innocent. I don't think there are as many "innocents" and people claim there are... but in order to answer your question - i don't know how many would be acceptable, there is no concrete answer for your question. I'm sorry if I've disappointed you on this one.

Originally posted by LordOpie
How do you reduce the cost of the legal system so that it's cheaper than life in prison and still allow for the appeals process?

you could open up a whole nother can of worms with that question... trials can drag on because of shady defense tactics? personally (and I know i'll probably get heat for this, but...) I think that the whole premise that someone caught commiting a crime gets off on a technicality, that, for example, he wasn't Mirandized correctly or at all... is a load of BS.

never the less, the appeals should be limited to one. there should be time constraints placed on hearings so as to not drag out for months.

there are lots of ways, but I'm sure many would find something to cry foul on, as it may not be percieved as providing a "fair" trial.

Originally posted by LordOpie
How do you determine what's a capital crime (other than murder)?

the whole Three Strikes policy works for me on this... if you're looking at life in prison for a third strike (or murder), i think that qualifies. anything that brings a life sentence or for that fact... but then again that's open to interpretation - some might think that 10, 15, 20 years is too long to support someone in prison

DHRacer · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by Silver
Congrats! You've managed to turn the entire ideal of the US way of life on it's head. You sound like you'd be a great candiadate for the AG's office right now. I hear they are looking for go-getters who think the Bill of Rights is a commie blight on our great country.

I don't suppose you'd have a problem with your brother being one of the 2%? Or your best friend? I can't even begin to start explaining why this type of thinking is so supremely stupid.

Goddamit.

once again... i've offered up a plan to vote on who gets to pay for prison support... those who are content to let these people live and want to pay for it, GREAT... those of us who don't want our tax dollars being spent on that garbage, wouldn't have to.

and no, i wouldn't have a problem with it.. in fact I did have a friend of mine who's still in jail (I assume) for robbing a convenience store and shooting the sales clerk. he should have gotten the death penalty.

if you take someone's life like that, you should forfeit any rights you have as a person. what about the person who died? what about their rights? our society is twisted anymore that the criminal is quickly become the victim. so dont' talk to me about "rights"... murderers shouldnt' have rights.

Silver · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by DHRacer

and no, i wouldn't have a problem with it.. in fact I did have a friend of mine who's still in jail (I assume) for robbing a convenience store and shooting the sales clerk. he should have gotten the death penalty.

if you take someone's life like that, you should forfeit any rights you have as a person. what about the person who died? what about their rights? our society is twisted anymore that the criminal is quickly become the victim. so dont' talk to me about "rights"... murderers shouldnt' have rights.

Read the question, then answer.

What if you brother was the 2% (an I agree with Ohio, I'd be shocked if the number was that low) that was completely innocent?

Oh well, luck of the draw, right?

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by LordOpie
saying it cost nothing to execute someone cuz how much could a bullet cost is extremely shortsighted.

There's due process and that process of death penalty appeals costs more than life in prison.

Now, if you'd like to argue that there should be no appeals, well, you're scaring the sh:t out of me

I would like those proponents for a simplified and expedient capital punishment system to answer this...

Look into The Green River Killer and tell me he doesn't deserve a quick death.

He has saved his life....in jail or not. He did not give that choice to the ladies (48?) that he admitted to murdering.

Appeals? How many should it take? 18 years? no. How many attemps? I don't know. More than 3(or a much less than current magic number)? no.

Much like the deficit....life in prison cost MUCH more than can be figured in by most people and the cost ONLY GETS BIGGER.

The time man power and facilities to hold someone for 80 years will not be less than apeals and an execution. Iwould imagine overhead rationed out that the cost of detaining 1 prisoiner is more than is rational.

The reason it is so expense to convict a murder and put them to death is a problem in the system that I beleive is established to protect the innocent. That is is a duel edged sword. We do are best to save the "innocent" but let go many who are not. Better to let the guilty go than to jail an "innocent."

Tell me the next time a 13yo girl gets ubducted by a man convicted of rape in the past 'cuase the system didn't have room for him any more....you think our system is working.

Silver · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by DHRacer

you could open up a whole nother can of worms with that question... trials can drag on because of shady defense tactics? personally (and I know i'll probably get heat for this, but...) I think that the whole premise that someone caught commiting a crime gets off on a technicality, that, for example, he wasn't Mirandized correctly or at all... is a load of BS.

Again, you have no understanding of how the criminal justice system works. You know why those people get off on technicalities? It's about the one thing that keeps the police in check. Of course, you've pretty much stated you don't mind a police state, so I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by ummbikes
You ever hear the Chris Rock bit on the tossed salad man? Ever visted a jail?

It's not torture but it's no freaking picnic either.

Life anywhere seems sweeter than death...No?

Silver · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by DHRacer
once again... i've offered up a plan to vote on who gets to pay for prison support... those who are content to let these people live and want to pay for it, GREAT... those of us who don't want our tax dollars being spent on that garbage, wouldn't have to.

And then there is this genius plan. I'm not having children, I don't want to support schools. I don't drive a car, I don't want my taxes to go to roads. I don't support war, I don't want my taxes to go to the military...you have to be getting the picture, right?

DHRacer · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by Silver
Read the question, then answer.

What if you brother was the 2% (an I agree with Ohio, I'd be shocked if the number was that low) that was completely innocent?

Oh well, luck of the draw, right?

well, you know... that's a tough one. as I said it's not a perfect system.

and luckily, I'll probably never have to be in a situation where I'd have to decide that.

If I say doesn't matter, that you're bound to get a few innocents in there, but for the greater good, you have to go with lesser of the two evils, I'm a heartles prick, right?

But if I say no, it's my brother, appeal appeal appeal... then I've just contridicted everything I've just said.

so there ya go

ummbikes · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
weren't they whores?

Oh dear God, Stinkle you are joking right?

JRogers · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by DHRacer
once again... i've offered up a plan to vote on who gets to pay for prison support... those who are content to let these people live and want to pay for it, GREAT... those of us who don't want our tax dollars being spent on that garbage, wouldn't have to.

and no, i wouldn't have a problem with it.. in fact I did have a friend of mine who's still in jail (I assume) for robbing a convenience store and shooting the sales clerk. he should have gotten the death penalty.

if you take someone's life like that, you should forfeit any rights you have as a person. what about the person who died? what about their rights? our society is twisted anymore that the criminal is quickly become the victim. so dont' talk to me about "rights"... murderers shouldnt' have rights.

So how many times does one have to do or deal drugs to forfeit their rights?

What a joke. Your tax dollars being spent on keeping death row inmates alive is so minimal it's ridiculous. Answer this: what does killing someone for a crime accomplish?

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Everyone tellme your OK with the current system and it down falls........

It is nice to sit there all cozy and think you are protecting the innocent....

Keeping the police in check can happen without the 'technicalities' that get a murderer off.

Oopps sorry while the cop was arresting you he forgot to dot an i....Mr murderer you are free. Bad Cop!

Prison isn't easy street but it is better than death or everyone would pick the death penalty. Don't tell me prison life in the 21st century is as hard as prisons in the 19 and 20th century. It should be worse than death...to spend life in prison.

Why does capitol offenses cost so much more than a lesser crime? They still appeal and still live in jail. both sides will agrue the costs.

A murder left to live his life (where he didn't give the same consideration to his victem) is the largest crime of all.

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
weren't they whores?

Many. Who deserved fines and a week in jail.....

definately not death, and not by Ridgeway.

I hope you were kidding......

LordOpie · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Look into The Green River Killer and tell me he doesn't deserve a quick death.

Tell me the next time a 13yo girl gets ubducted by a man convicted of rape in the past 'cuase the system didn't have room for him any more....you think our system is working.

I said our system is working?

In fact, if you've ever read anything I've ever said on the subject, i've been consistent with saying that people who are a threat to society should be put down... especially those who abuse children. I have zero tolerance for that.

If you don't want to discuss the topic, fine, but don't toss garbage out there cuz that's just a waste of both our time.

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by JRogers
So how many times does one have to do or deal drugs to forfeit their rights?

What a joke. Your tax dollars being spent on keeping death row inmates alive is so minimal it's ridiculous. Answer this: what does killing someone for a crime accomplish?

What does not punishing them accomplish? That they commit it again and again and agian and drain and overload the system evenmore........

You want a magic number? ......... :think:

2. Happy?

If I got caught selling drugs, convicted, did my time.....I wouldn't risk doing it if I knew I wouls be put to death. not enough chances?

How many people soes one need to kill before they no longer deserve to breath?

brock · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Many. Who deserved fines and a week in jail.....

If they get three of them (it does qualify for three strikes), DHRacer would have them killed.

Silver · Feb 10, 2004

Rhino, you're assuming guilt.

Once you do that, sure, it's easy to point out the flaws in the system. When you don't assume someone is guilty, it becomes a whole lot harder. Does the Green River Killer deserve to die? As much as any person ever had, I'd say.

That's a strawman argument of epic proportions, however.

Google the case of Roosevelt Collins and tell me that the system worked. If you can convince me sucessfully that he should have died after the trial he got, then you might convert me to your way of thinking.

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by LordOpie

I said our system is working?

In fact, if you've ever read anything I've ever said on the subject, i've been consistent with saying that people who are a threat to society should be put down... especially those who abuse children. I have zero tolerance for that.

If you don't want to discuss the topic, fine, but don't toss garbage out there cuz that's just a waste of both our time.

I thought i was discussing the topic, but since I haven't fallen in line with you than I must be avoiding the topic. :rolleyes:

OK so if the system doesn't how does one fix it. You say killing them isn't goingto help...tell me what will.

Educating them....giving them degrees....having them say they are sorry..... and promising they will change their ways?

I think the problem is the expense in convicting a murderer...multiple times through appeals.....is the problem. Remove that excess cost and all of a sudden the cost is less.

Appeals should not be mandatory. They should be given when true evidence of the defendant was not given a fair chance. That is for a judge to decide...not me. But they should not be handed out lightly. Being found guilty by a jury of your peers the first time should be all that is needed. That is fair and due process.

Remove the burden on the court system and stop the curcus that is the current appeal system and a large part of the problem is removed.

A person that robs a convienence store and shoots the cashier should not be allowed to live. He cold go the rest of his life and not do it agian...but he has shown he has the capacity to it and has taken another life. When did his victem get the choice and the appeals?

Please don't avoid the subject :rolleyes:

what should be done if capitol punishment isn't the answer. Because life in prison isn't a real choice.

LordOpie · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Because life in prison isn't a real choice.

Why?

EDIT: Probably should've been, "Why not?"

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by brock
If they get three of them (it does qualify for three strikes), DHRacer would have them killed.

We've gone through this before you and I

Now wouldn't you think you would start looking for some other profession....

Ridgeway didn't give them one strike.

DHRacer · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by brock
If they get three of them (it does qualify for three strikes), DHRacer would have them killed.

Prostitution isnt' a serious or violent felony, therefore isn't covered in the Three Stirkes Law.

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by LordOpie
Why?

Jesus!

the cost of houseing and the on going costs....much like our baby boomers are sucking out of social security is will cost much more in the long run.

It it is a flowing hose(lifers) and a full bucket(Prisons)...bring another bucket(build a prison)...and another.....and another....and another...soon the whole area is full of buckets....oops subtract one (death from old age or whatever) and add 10 more....

It would only increase. The costs of facilities, overhead (EVERYTHING involved not directly tied to a inmate) and personal care (food, health care, entertainment) for 80 years is insane!

Do you REALLY think that it doesn't cost that much to house not just one man.........everyperson in prison and everyone that fallows them in the future?

How can that be eclipsed by killing them?

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
seeing that by and large we house (not rehabilitate) criminals, thusly enabling recidivists, the corrections system has to be rehabilitated. When human life (however undervalued) is on the line, appeals should be mandated. Again, because it's human life.

I'm against CP, entirely due to its inherent fallability. The solution, it seems, asymptotically approaches death.

As feel good and fuzy rehabilitating people sounds.....

They didn't give that choice to their victems.

If they were innocent they wouldn't need rehabilitating.

Apeals should be given when evidence that could prove a convicted person was given a fair trial. It shouldn't be mandated....you are rolling dice that eventually a jury will find them "innocent" :rolleyes:

How many times must one person be found guilty to truely be guilty? "You guilty?" "Nope. I am appealing.

"

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
so, what you're saying is...

Since we don't seem to be able to...

LordOpie · Feb 10, 2004

So those who are proponents of extending the functions of the CP system are in favor of it for financial reasons?

And this would include so-called "victimless" crimes, like drug abuse or prostitution? Basically, if you're convicted of a crime 3x, then we're done with you.

All because of money?

Am I summarizing this correctly?

ummbikes · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
As feel good and fuzy rehabilitating people sounds.....

They didn't give that choice to their victems.

If they were innocent they wouldn't need rehabilitating.

Apeals should be given when evidence that could prove a convicted person was given a fair trial. It shouldn't be mandated....you are rolling dice that eventually a jury will find them "innocent"

How many times must one person be found guilty to truely be guilty? "You guilty?" "Nope. I am appealing. "

As a side note, how do you feel about going back and testing every person on deathrow with the new and improved DNA tests? The tests have allowed some really innocent people (not just technically innocent) to have their life back. This technique would be apropos to determing whether or not a person should be executed.

Silver · Feb 10, 2004

Rhino, you going to answer my question, or are you just going to keep knocking that strawman down over and over?

I'm starting to think that you spent the weekend at N8's School of Debate

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by LordOpie
So those who are proponents of extending the functions of the CP system are in favor of it for financial reasons?

And this would include so-called "victimless" crimes, like drug abuse or prostitution? Basically, if you're convicted of a crime 3x, then we're done with you.

All because of money?

Am I summarizing this correctly?

Yeah that is what I am saying :rolleyes:

100%

on.

Would you prefer a more just "16 strikes and you are out" rule?

24stikes maybe?

Why should they be allowed to live? They have no value for other human life. Why should we value theirs?

DHRacer · Feb 10, 2004

okay, for the sake of arguement...

let's talk only "murder" here...

if someone IS guilty of murder, beyond a reasonable doubt (for example, Mr. Green River Killer)

Why should society have to keep him alive? Why should he deserve a better sentence than his victims?

would you not agree that he deserves to die... no appeals, no living on death row for 12-20 years, no more wasting the tax payers money...?

this is the root of the majority of my frustrations with the legal and penal systems... there is NO DOUBT, this man did it, he IS guilty... but yet, my tax dollars will go to support him and the rest of his life in prison.

that's just not right.

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by Silver
Rhino, you going to answer my question, or are you just going to keep knocking that strawman down over and over?

I'm starting to think that you spent the weekend at N8's School of Debate

I am sorry Silver....

I am terrible at juggling....which freaking question?

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by ummbikes
As a side note, how do you feel about going back and testing every person on deathrow with the new and improved DNA tests? The tests have allowed some really innocent people (not just technically innocent) to have their life back. This technique would be apropos to determing whether or not a person should be executed.

No problem with that. Now many old cases don't have DNA evidence to compare....do they get a fair shake? Start exuming bodies of all murdered people?

National DNA database? Is there one? if you are convicted of a crime...swab the mouth and file it. To big brother? I don't know.

DHRacer · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by LordOpie
So those who are proponents of extending the functions of the CP system are in favor of it for financial reasons?

And this would include so-called "victimless" crimes, like drug abuse or prostitution? Basically, if you're convicted of a crime 3x, then we're done with you.

All because of money?

Am I summarizing this correctly?

not necessarily...

are you saying the drug offenses are victimless? drug dealers ought to be right there next to the murders... no question.

as I stated, prostitution isn't a serious or violent felony, therefore doesnt' fall under the Three Strikes Law.

what it boils down to, is if a person is facing a life sentence in prison...

ummbikes · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
No problem with that. Now many old cases don't have DNA evidence to compare....do they get a fair shake? Start exuming bodies of all murdered people?

National DNA database? Is there one? if you are convicted of a crime...swab the mouth and file it. To big brother? I don't know.

We discussed the National DNA database in a constituional law class and there are many potential misuses for this type of data. I think it's more likely we will end up with a database of criminal DNA at some point.

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by Silver
Rhino, you're assuming guilt.

Once you do that, sure, it's easy to point out the flaws in the system. When you don't assume someone is guilty, it becomes a whole lot harder. Does the Green River Killer deserve to die? As much as any person ever had, I'd say.

That's a strawman argument of epic proportions, however.

Google the case of Roosevelt Collins and tell me that the system worked. If you can convince me sucessfully that he should have died after the trial he got, then you might convert me to your way of thinking.

If it was this question....

Can you objectively paraphrase the case...I really hate reading case files......

I assumed guilt because I would like themto be convictedbeofer putting themto death. but we all know what happens whenwe assume.....

Did the system fail? Then the system needs tweeking....not neccessarily the death penalty.

You assume the system fails and then we can't possibly have the death penalty. What about when the system is right....the way it was designed? Is it OK to then put themto death? No system anywhere is close to 100% unfallable.

RhinofromWA · Feb 10, 2004

Originally posted by ummbikes
We discussed the National DNA database in a constituional law class and there are many potential misuses for this type of data. I think it's more likely we will end up with a database of criminal DNA at some point.

is it much different that a finger printing database?

I am leaning on you for info since it has been discussed in class....you don't have to answer. What was the consensus?

capital punishment: the ultimate price?

find me a tampon

The Rev

The Rev

find me a tampon

Brevity R Us

find me a tampon

Brevity R Us

find me a tampon

The Rev

Expert on blowing

Don't mess with the Santas

talks too much

Brevity R Us

Brevity R Us

MOTHER HEN

Brevity R Us

Expert on blowing

Monkey

find me a tampon

Brevity R Us

MOTHER HEN

Brevity R Us

The Rev

Expert on blowing

Brevity R Us

Brevity R Us

Expert on blowing

Brevity R Us

MOTHER HEN

Don't mess with the Santas

find me a tampon

Brevity R Us

The Rev

Brevity R Us

Brevity R Us

The Rev

Don't mess with the Santas

Expert on blowing

Brevity R Us

Brevity R Us