|
Post by bluechips23 on Apr 8, 2015 15:25:38 GMT -6
I was wondering what you guys think about how his punishment should be carried out.
|
|
|
Post by gritter13 on Apr 8, 2015 16:32:04 GMT -6
As much as I want to see the guy go thru the horrible pain he put his victims thru, I still believe in the 8th amendment which prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishments, though this guy certainly makes me rethink that opinion. I think execution should still be on the table as a punishment, so I went with the needle.
|
|
stork15
HIgh School Starter
Posts: 423
|
Post by stork15 on Apr 8, 2015 16:57:05 GMT -6
With the current state of the government and legal system the death penalty should never be on the table for anyone, ever.
Life in prison, obviously without parole.
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Apr 8, 2015 16:58:26 GMT -6
@gritt
I would usually agree with you about the cruel and unusual punishments part, however, I think in special cases that involve abhorrent crimes, that the method of execution should serve as not only the punishment but also act as an undeniable method of deterrence. Some messed up people who plan and execute things like this seem to accept traditional execution methods without a second thought and go on with their plan, because the legal system was made up to deal with average "rational" criminals and weighs on the side of empathy/rehabilitation instead of deterrence, which was the right way to go with 99% of criminals, but as populations grow and entropy increases the numbers of radical inhumane criminals increase, and with technology these radicals have an easier path to act on their twisted thoughts, therefore I believe the deterrence of crimes like these to be elevated to a more functional level. With that said, i dont believe there should be a viewing room for this nor any video or anything, just a report given afterwards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 17:03:25 GMT -6
I oppose the death penalty for a variety of reasons, so life in prison without parole.
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Apr 8, 2015 17:07:53 GMT -6
With the current state of the government and legal system the death penalty should never be on the table for anyone, ever. Life in prison, obviously without parole. While your idealism is commendable.. It is not quite pragmatic nor effective in deterrence of crime. As I wrote above, I dont believe special punishments should be common but used in only extreme cases. In my opinion, everyone has the right to live, until, you kill, maim, or torture people for psychological pleasure and not because of dire circumstances, self defense, or mental break from emotional distress. Thats just my opinion though.
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Apr 8, 2015 17:16:50 GMT -6
The thing with life without parole is, while it is a major punishment, especially if spent in solitary, is that the society that was the victim of the criminal then becomes its caretaker by wasting money on the housing, food, clothing, supplies. While its no picnic for the convicted, i just dont believe that the civilian population should pay to keep a lunatic alive. Some psychos just need to be cut from the gene pool quick and spare the rest of society.
|
|
|
Post by ClauseIsAWarrior on Apr 8, 2015 17:40:50 GMT -6
Shoot him in the head. It is cheaper than a shot to kill him or any other option.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 17:44:44 GMT -6
The thing with life without parole is, while it is a major punishment, especially if spent in solitary, is that the society that was the victim of the criminal then becomes its caretaker by wasting money on the housing, food, clothing, supplies. While its no picnic for the convicted, i just dont believe that the civilian population should pay to keep a lunatic alive. Some psychos just need to be cut from the gene pool quick and spare the rest of society. So at the risk of engaging in a debate that I don't necessarily want to take part in, the reasons you support the death penalty are false. It is not a criminal deterrent and it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life. I'm just gonna share some information on this, I guess. On the topic of being a criminal deterrent: From the Washington Post: From Politfact: From Amnesty International: And perhaps most effectively illustrated from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology: As for the cost... From Forbes: From NBC: From the Marshall Project:
|
|
huxley
1st Rounder
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by huxley on Apr 8, 2015 18:08:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Apr 8, 2015 18:40:27 GMT -6
@ajdell
I dont plan on this being an argumentative thread by any means so dont worry about that.
As for your exerts, I have read many studies like the ones you posted, and i think most of them have serious flaws in their experiments along with not mentioning other models. Comparing capital punishment states vs. non cap punishment states is not a adequate experiment, there is no control because there cant be, and the societal differences between states plays too much of a role to try to compare these. A state like Texas has a culture and population that deals with completely different situations than a state like Wisconsin, so to try to compare incarceration rates between these two is not a valid scientific experiment.
"The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime."
This quote, while true, does not make a case for completely eliminating the death penalty, because these same criminals are not thinking or caring about being incarcerated either. If you just replace execution with incarceration in "the threat of ( )" the statement remains valid. FYI, I dont believe in the death penalty for everything it is currently be used for..
As for the parts about cost to community, the only reasons why an execution costs more than incarcerations is due to a broken system. Capital Punishment trials shouldn't cost more than other serious murder type trials, they should both be treated with the same diligence, but they aren't which results in inferior trial quality (sufficient evidence, lawyers, focus) in non cap trials and lead to more people being wrongly sent to prison. Another issue with death penalty costs is the method. For awhile we have convinced ourselves that using needles is the best way to execute people, but it really isnt. Especially when the VETERINARIANS are the ones doing the mixing and application instead of doctors, due to the hypocratic oath. We use needles because it FEELS more humane than other methods, but no one knows what these people are feeling and thinking while they are being dosed and sitting there for minutes waiting. Needles are just so the law enforcement and public feels less quessy about the act that needs to be done. IF different methods were used, ie. mechanical firing squad (heart n brainstem), mechanical surgical blade thrust between vertebrae at brainstem; the cost would be infinitesimally cheap, and it would be quick and no need to wait for chemical compounds..
So to summarize..
Cap punishment state vs non cap punishment state experiments = invalid due to no control and too many variables. For example, if California and Texas instantly went to non cap states, i strong believe a study like mentioned above would be quite different as incarceration rates in these 2 would stay very high and maybe increase
Death sentence is more costly than life in prison because, Expensive drugs, drawn out death row stays, more court time n evidence (though the effort should be the same for both), hiring specialists (vets) to administer poison. All of these which can and should be changed IMO.
|
|
|
Post by ClauseIsAWarrior on Apr 8, 2015 18:44:58 GMT -6
Ah, yes Hux. Slobodan Milošević.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 19:34:30 GMT -6
So to summarize.. Cap punishment state vs non cap punishment state experiments = invalid due to no control and too many variables. For example, if California and Texas instantly went to non cap states, i strong believe a study like mentioned above would be quite different as incarceration rates in these 2 would stay very high and maybe increase Death sentence is more costly than life in prison because, Expensive drugs, drawn out death row stays, more court time n evidence (though the effort should be the same for both), hiring specialists (vets) to administer poison. All of these which can and should be changed IMO. Okay, but in both the case of deterrence and of cost, you're essentially acknowledging the things you said earlier are untrue. You said earlier that the death penalty would deter others. There's no conclusive evidence that it is a deterrent, which you essentially agree with here: And I'll add to that a quote I already shared from Daniel Nagin, a public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University and chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty: "It’s the certainty of apprehension, not the severity of the ensuing consequences, that is the more effective deterrent." You also acknowledged that executions cost more: I can appreciate that there are reasons for it and that many of those costs are associated with flaws to the criminal justice system. But you made the case for the death penalty on the grounds that life without parole makes the person a financial burden on society, which comparatively is not case. You're advocating for participating in that system despite this. We're in agreement that the criminal justice system is broken. The cost of killing someone would be low on my list of things to fix, though.
|
|
|
Post by gritter13 on Apr 8, 2015 19:56:37 GMT -6
This is a great discussion.
For me, I think that the death penalty should be used in the judicial system. Mainly because I think a punishment should fit the crime, and there are some crimes that have been committed where life in prison without the possibility of parole just isn't enough of a punishment. This is one of those cases for me.
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Apr 8, 2015 20:13:06 GMT -6
the point i was making with the quote
"The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime."
is that these crimes are crimes of passion and/or of people with a diminished mental capacity. When they types of crimes happen the criminal doesn't think about Anything other than doing what they want, because of exactly what is stated in the quote. But legal deterrence isn't created to try to stop these types of criminals because nothing logically will because they aren't thinking logically. And its these exact cases that i am actually more against the death penalty than for it. Like if a man finds his daughter being raped and he goes wild and kills the rapist, or a mentally challenged man stabs n kills a man because he thought they were playing and didn't understand the cause and effect;i certainly wouldnt think they deserve the death penalty.
The criminals that i think should be executed are those like the boston bombers, OKC Bomber, the unabomber, charles manson, Jeffrey Dommer, BTK killer, KKK killers. AKA those that plan, measure the risks, and go through with it anyway to feed into their agenda. Those are the ones that deterrences COULD have an effect on. And I know there is no Concrete evidence on record of capital punishment being a deterrence Because that would mean we would need people to come forward and admit they were ABOUT to kill someone but then they got scared because they didnt want to be giving the needle, but if it was just jail time they would've gone throught with it. Which is a completely unlikely event that will never happen, so of course there isn't any solid proof deterrence of cap punishment works better than that of life in prison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 20:41:18 GMT -6
The criminals that i think should be executed are those like the boston bombers, OKC Bomber, the unabomber, charles manson, Jeffrey Dommer, BTK killer, KKK killers. AKA those that plan, measure the risks, and go through with it anyway to feed into their agenda. Those are the ones that deterrences COULD have an effect on. I'd have to imagine that the fact that all of those things happened is proof in itself that the death penalty was not a deterrent. Massachusetts has the death penalty, it did not deter the Boston bombers. Oklahoma has the death penalty, it did not deter Timothy McVeigh. Not only was the death penalty in affect when the Unabomber was tried, but the Unabomber's lawyers used a mental illness defense in attempts to avoid the death penalty—and the Ted Kaczynski petitioned the court to dismiss the plea. California had the death penalty, it did not deter Charles Manson (though his sentence was later commuted to life in prison).
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Apr 8, 2015 21:22:00 GMT -6
Any deterrent doesnt work on all offenders, as a security guard doesnt stop all bank robbers. Most of these criminals, although mentally capable, became warped through their experiences which led them to be determined beyond doubt even if they are executed. Manson thought he was god, Unabomber thought he was saving america, BTK was a sociopath. I do not know much about the OKC bomber so i cant comment on that. But my point is that a deterrence like the needle helps some prospective criminals but in even more severe cases i think a more extreme version should be used to set an example for those like the boston bombers so any future criminals will have to think that much more if they want to go through with it. Because honestly, if you are willing to do the atrocities like in boston, the worst case scenario of a needle in your arm and take a "painless" nap forever, doesnt sound like that much a thing to be fearful of.
The only reason the unabomber fired his lawyers was because he saw it as a massive insult, saying that he was crazy, he felt he knew exactly what was real and not and thought he was smarter than most people, which he was.. just not chemically balanced. If the court wanted him to be given the needle, i dont think he would've minded, because he would've went down as a martyr even more in his mind.
|
|
stork15
HIgh School Starter
Posts: 423
|
Post by stork15 on Apr 8, 2015 21:43:48 GMT -6
With the current state of the government and legal system the death penalty should never be on the table for anyone, ever. Life in prison, obviously without parole. While your idealism is commendable.. It is not quite pragmatic nor effective in deterrence of crime. As I wrote above, I dont believe special punishments should be common but used in only extreme cases. In my opinion, everyone has the right to live, until, you kill, maim, or torture people for psychological pleasure and not because of dire circumstances, self defense, or mental break from emotional distress. Thats just my opinion though. The death penalty isn't a deterrent of crime. That is a fact - so your entire point is moot. The government and justice system simply aren't capable of handling such permanent decisions, as evidenced by the dozens of people who have been sentenced to the death penalty only to have them be exonerated years later. It feels good to kill bad people, but the death penalty is an abject failure when you look at the facts.
|
|
stork15
HIgh School Starter
Posts: 423
|
Post by stork15 on Apr 8, 2015 21:45:17 GMT -6
The thing with life without parole is, while it is a major punishment, especially if spent in solitary, is that the society that was the victim of the criminal then becomes its caretaker by wasting money on the housing, food, clothing, supplies. While its no picnic for the convicted, i just dont believe that the civilian population should pay to keep a lunatic alive. Some psychos just need to be cut from the gene pool quick and spare the rest of society. Here's another MAJOR flaw in your argument. The death penalty costs tax payers more than life in prison - that's another undeniable fact.
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Apr 8, 2015 22:08:03 GMT -6
@stork
Read thoroughly what was written earlier. I already mentioned why the death penalty costs more, and most of it can be fixed somewhat easily with the right leaders.
and saying the death penalty isn't a deterrent is a fact shows you are not willing to look at this subject in depth and see the gray areas. No point of my argument is moot. Except maybe that the legal system should change, because it rarely corrects itself. These "facts" you look at, are skewed at best.
"The government and justice system simply aren't capable of handling such permanent decisions, as evidenced by the dozens of people who have been sentenced to the death penalty only to have them be exonerated years later."
Except they are forced to deal with these decisions. Unless you want to pass them onto town councils and mobs, this is the best entity to deal with it. As for the people wrongfully sentenced to death row.. that mostly has to do with racism, tampered/missing evidence, lacking technology (DNA testing), perjury by witnesses, and ambitious prosecutors. But nowadays we have far better crime scene technology and abilities to look into each defendent's lives, motives, communications, and movements so the number of the wrongly accused on death row will continue to dramatically decrease.
Seems like you are the one that likes the drama.
|
|