davidtaylorjr
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,775
- Reaction score
- 1,123
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That doesn't justify killing someone that's no longer a threat to society. The justice system shouldn't be about revenge.
I support it in the case of murder which can be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever. The death penalty for someone who intentionally causes the death of another, without cause, is justice.
Well I think the counter argument would be that the same is done to the executed person's family, but like I said of all those arguments, I find that one the least compelling.
:roll: The death penalty IS justice.
Maybe in your eyes. It's wrong though.
I am absolutely in support of the death penalty and I don't think it gets used nearly enough. I think we ought to eliminate LWOP and put anyone who is never going to get out of prison to death.
That's certainly something I agree with. I just question the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the convicted enough in our system. Even with the extreme nature of death penalty trials with a higher standard for proof and many expert witnesses called, which contributes to its immense cost, there still seem to have been a large number of exonerated death row inmates, even within the last decade. Likely even more should have been, but were executed before being exonerated which usually halts the investigations.
:roll: The death penalty IS justice.
Also, even with DNA technology, lab errors happen. The technicians are human beings, and they make mistakes sometimes. Also, there are sometimes more nefarious reasons for mix-ups that occur in a laboratory. I gave two examples in another thread of recent cases where forensic lab technicians were charged with evidence tampering in Massachusetts.
It would certainly deter a lot of crime I am sure.
Many of the cases I've read about had to do with law enforcement perjury. Its hard to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt when you consider that some of these people have an incentive to lie in order to get a conviction.
It's not meant to be a deterrent, it's called the death PENALTY for a reason. It's supposed to remove people who have committed crimes too heinous for them to continue to breath the same air as decent society from the planet permanently.
Why is it wrong. Why don't you spell that out for us?
I'm just not sure all of you clamoring to be pillars of societal decency and human morality are really the authorities you believe yourselves to be.
It never stops you from claiming to be the arbiter of libertarian values though, does it? :roll:
Not really. It consumes innocent life, it is not a deterrent, it is super expensive, and it doesn't net society any additional safety for the cost. It's easier and cheaper just to house a prisoner for life and we don't have to open the can of worms associated with the death penalty. There's not much need for it. We'd be better served reforming our prison system in general.
It's not meant to be a deterrent, it's called the death PENALTY for a reason. It's supposed to remove people who have committed crimes too heinous for them to continue to breath the same air as decent society from the planet permanently.
The person isn't a threat to society, hence we shouldn't kill them.
How are they not a threat to society?
They're locked up.
You are telling me that it costs LESS to house someone for life than to use the death penalty? I'd love to know how those numbers work out.....
Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits.
So an increasing number of them are considering abolishing capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment, not on principle but out of financial necessity.
"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.
In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?