• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Death Penalty

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have always been against the death penalty because of the sheer number of innocent people who have been executed.

-----------------------

Some interesting insight from: http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.
States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.


The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse."

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.
 

Discovery

New member
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's really interesting.

I myself am also against the death penalty one reason being is that it seems inhumane to do such a thing, even though that person has murdered. It's like committing another murder.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Vader said:
I have always been against the death penalty because of the sheer number of innocent people who have been executed.

-----------------------

Some interesting insight from: http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.
States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.


The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse."

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.
death penalty is no longer a deterent
mexicans rather be dead then poor
the gangs of illegal aliens from Mexico battle it out in the streets
on a daily basis no different to iraq today
it is more likely that an la police officer die from an illegal alien then an american soldier in IRAQ
today
and they just don't give a damn who you are they will kill you
because they dont want to be poor and dont care about the death penalty
the only thing to fear is fear itself
the ,mexicans have nothing to lose worse case they go to jail and get 3 squares a day
and will form gangs of thugs to protect their turf
coming to an American city near you
they have you out numbered and will soon out vote both the democrates and the republicans combined
their party is called mexico owns our destiny
or DOOM for short
 
Last edited:

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Vader said:
I have always been against the death penalty because of the sheer number of innocent people who have been executed.

-----------------------

Some interesting insight from: http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.
States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.


The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse."

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.
Very interesting
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here is a question I have. Did Texas at one time not have the death penalty, but then later on, decided to re-institute the death penalty? If this is true, what were the reasons why Texas decided to re-institute the death penalty?
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Discovery said:
That's really interesting.

I myself am also against the death penalty one reason being is that it seems inhumane to do such a thing, even though that person has murdered. It's like committing another murder.

Uhh... You can't murder a murderer. I believe in Hammurabi's Law/Code thingy. Eye fer an eye! Plus, why the Hell should my tax dollars go to paying for some serial killer to live in prison? And with modern forensics (which is still improving) the % of innocent ppl on death is PROBABLY going down. Child rapists should either be put to death or have their "parts" chopped off.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Discovery said:
That's really interesting.

I myself am also against the death penalty one reason being is that it seems inhumane to do such a thing, even though that person has murdered. It's like committing another murder.

Oh yeah. And did you ever think about how "inhumane" it was when the victim was murdered by the suspect? Why are liberals always more focused on the rights of criminals instead of the victims? Like OJ, he has the "Luxury" of going home every night, but the woman he MURDERED doesn't.
 

XShipRider

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Donkey1499 said:
Oh yeah. And did you ever think about how "inhumane" it was when the victim was murdered by the suspect? Why are liberals always more focused on the rights of criminals instead of the victims? Like OJ, he has the "Luxury" of going home every night, but the woman he MURDERED doesn't.
Donk' I'm on the same page much of the time with you but not with regard
to the death penalty.

It amazes me how many people, even if only a few, are exonerated of
quite heinous crimes through DNA testing. Some death row inmates,
life in prison inmates and lesser sentences are exonerated of crimes
every year.

How can we as a nation say abortion is wrong but the death penalty is
right? I know... unborn children have no sin. I understand that but
beg the question, "If people are being exonerated through DNA testing,
how many people have we wrongfully put to death?"

There are those who spew it's better to put one innocent to death than
let ten guilty people go free. That's all fine and good but those innocents
put to death aren't getting a say in the matter. Put yourself in the shoes
of an innocent condemned to death. Can you imagine the horror?

I used to be pro-death penalty but after seeing a few exonerated have
changed my mind. It definitely provokes thought.
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Donkey1499 said:
Oh yeah. And did you ever think about how "inhumane" it was when the victim was murdered by the suspect? Why are liberals always more focused on the rights of criminals instead of the victims? Like OJ, he has the "Luxury" of going home every night, but the woman he MURDERED doesn't.
I'm confused about your analogy here...how does your disdain of liberals and their call for these rights of criminals, tie in with the OJ simpson case?
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
XShipRider said:
Donk' I'm on the same page much of the time with you but not with regard
to the death penalty.

It amazes me how many people, even if only a few, are exonerated of
quite heinous crimes through DNA testing. Some death row inmates,
life in prison inmates and lesser sentences are exonerated of crimes
every year.

How can we as a nation say abortion is wrong but the death penalty is
right? I know... unborn children have no sin. I understand that but
beg the question, "If people are being exonerated through DNA testing,
how many people have we wrongfully put to death?"

There are those who spew it's better to put one innocent to death than
let ten guilty people go free. That's all fine and good but those innocents
put to death aren't getting a say in the matter. Put yourself in the shoes
of an innocent condemned to death. Can you imagine the horror?

I used to be pro-death penalty but after seeing a few exonerated have
changed my mind. It definitely provokes thought.
It is sad to see an innocent being die, but with modern forensics (which is still improving everyday) it's rare when an innocent person goes to jail. But, only those who can be proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, should be put to death.

If you have a bus load of nuns tell you that a man murdered his friend on the roadway, and all of them can positively ID the man, and they find the murder weapon, with his fingerprints on it; then the man is guilty and should be put to death. But, then it all depends why he killed his friend. Was it in self defense? Did his friend do something to **** him off? Or what? I guess it really just depends on the circumstances of the case.

But I still think that guys like Son of Sam and the Boston Stranglers should be put to death. Even the BTK guy.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Brigand said:
I'm confused about your analogy here...how does your disdain of liberals and their call for these rights of criminals, tie in with the OJ simpson case?
Because OJ got off on a crime he clearly committed. But, the Jury bought into the "Chewbacca Defense" (I know that isn't the right term, but all in the same). I don't know what a racist cop had to do with OJ. Simpson was on trial, not the LAPD. Cochran twisted the facts to distract the jury, and the retards bought into it.

Yes, criminals deserve a "fair trial", but when they get let off on a crime that they clearly committed because a lawyer twists the facts or distracts the jury, it's just not justice. I'm not saying to give OJ the DP, but he should at least serve life for the murder of that woman.

But now OJ's able to go out and play golf everyday while the family of the victim will never see her again. Is that justice? No.
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Donkey1499 said:
Because OJ got off on a crime he clearly committed. But, the Jury bought into the "Chewbacca Defense" (I know that isn't the right term, but all in the same). I don't know what a racist cop had to do with OJ. Simpson was on trial, not the LAPD. Cochran twisted the facts to distract the jury, and the retards bought into it.

Yes, criminals deserve a "fair trial", but when they get let off on a crime that they clearly committed because a lawyer twists the facts or distracts the jury, it's just not justice. I'm not saying to give OJ the DP, but he should at least serve life for the murder of that woman.

But now OJ's able to go out and play golf everyday while the family of the victim will never see her again. Is that justice? No.
OK, I can gig what you're saying...But, I don't see how that's liberalism at it's worse, so much as it is, a corrupt legal system and a dodgy jury.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Brigand said:
OK, I can gig what you're saying...But, I don't see how that's liberalism at it's worse, so much as it is, a corrupt legal system and a dodgy jury.
When I said liberals, I meant the defense lawyers. Cuz they believe that no one should be held accountable for their actions. Like: "It's society's fault that the mailroom clerk shot 12 co-workers." It's crap like that that pisses me off. And it should **** everyone off, but it doesn't.
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Donkey1499 said:
When I said liberals, I meant the defense lawyers. Cuz they believe that no one should be held accountable for their actions. Like: "It's society's fault that the mailroom clerk shot 12 co-workers." It's crap like that that pisses me off. And it should **** everyone off, but it doesn't.
No, no, no.. Look, defense lawyers == liberals? Defense lawyers, aren't concerned about someone being or not being held accountable, for any moral standing reason or liberal leaning.

Defense lawyers, and certainly the top-nobber ones, are concerned with, essentially, the money and the winning.

They're hired and paid big bucks, to paint the sweetest picture of their clients and condemn the whole god-forsaken world!
Being a defense lawyer, for one, pays far better than a prosecutor.

It's not Liberalism, my friend...it's called Capitalism.
 

mikeey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
776
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Discovery its bad, but u have got to remember 1 thing,what if it was u.

haha.

mikeey
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Donkey1499 said:
Because OJ got off on a crime he clearly committed. But, the Jury bought into the "Chewbacca Defense" (I know that isn't the right term, but all in the same). I don't know what a racist cop had to do with OJ. Simpson was on trial, not the LAPD. Cochran twisted the facts to distract the jury, and the retards bought into it.
Hey, if the glove dosen't fit- acquit!:lol:

Yes, criminals deserve a "fair trial", but when they get let off on a crime that they clearly committed because a lawyer twists the facts or distracts the jury, it's just not justice. I'm not saying to give OJ the DP, but he should at least serve life for the murder of that woman.
Yes, I am in agreement here. OJ should definetly not get the death penalty, as should no one, but I do think he should be imprisoned for life.

But now OJ's able to go out and play golf everyday while the family of the victim will never see her again. Is that justice? No.
I agree, if I'm not mistaken after the trial he said he was going to find the killer whatever it takes..... well, we are still waiting. I already know who the killer was.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Brigand said:
No, no, no.. Look, defense lawyers == liberals? Defense lawyers, aren't concerned about someone being or not being held accountable, for any moral standing reason or liberal leaning.

Defense lawyers, and certainly the top-nobber ones, are concerned with, essentially, the money and the winning.

They're hired and paid big bucks, to paint the sweetest picture of their clients and condemn the whole god-forsaken world!
Being a defense lawyer, for one, pays far better than a prosecutor.

It's not Liberalism, my friend...it's called Capitalism.
Money is only half of it. Liberal Lawyers really do think that no one should be held accountable for their actions. How do these lawyers sleep at night knowing that they help let someone, like a serial child molester, go?
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Donkey1499 said:
Money is only half of it. Liberal Lawyers really do think that no one should be held accountable for their actions. How do these lawyers sleep at night knowing that they help let someone, like a serial child molester, go?
OK, returning back. I still fail to see how OJ Simpsons case ties in with any of this, according to you. Are you saying that Cochrane was a Liberal lawyer, who helped set Simpson free, primarily on his moral belief that no one should be held accountable?
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Brigand said:
OK, returning back. I still fail to see how OJ Simpsons case ties in with any of this, according to you. Are you saying that Cochrane was a Liberal lawyer, who helped set Simpson free, primarily on his moral belief that no one should be held accountable?
Yes, that is the liberal view, or at least part of it. The Scott Peterson lawyer is a liberal as well, and so are the ACLU lawyers (or most of em').
 

Ace

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
Fargo
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
As a person studying law enforcement, the only thing that puts a criminal away is evidence and with out it you have no case. I believe in the death penalty even though I'm a Catholic. The reason why the BTK killer is not on death row because he started his crime's in 1973 and KS started the death penalty up again in 1975. OJ's lawyers use the race card to get him off a double murder.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First of all, life in prison can be a worse fate than the death penalty, especially when it is lethal injection. Prison can be a treacherous place, and there is nothing you can do to put your hopes on, to make you happy, or do something with your life.

Second of all, if there was no death penalty, it would be WAYYYY too much money. If they did something as extreme and inhumane as murder, the death penalty is justified. What the death penatly does is keep our prisons from being overcrowded and our society safe, with justice done to the murderer. I personally would rather have my tax dollars spent on hard-working Americans rather than criminals (going along with that, do away with the rehabilitation theory). Supporting a person for life in prison is A LOT of money that is not needed to be spent. Of course, not everyone should get the death penalty, it should be limited to extreme crimes that are close to 100% in assurance that the criminal committed the crime.
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hornburger said:
First of all, life in prison can be a worse fate than the death penalty, especially when it is lethal injection. Prison can be a treacherous place, and there is nothing you can do to put your hopes on, to make you happy, or do something with your life.
I agree with the first part, but in most prisons there are all kind of worship groups and other things to give you a false sense of happiness.

Second of all, if there was no death penalty, it would be WAYYYY too much money. If they did something as extreme and inhumane as murder, the death penalty is justified. What the death penatly does is keep our prisons from being overcrowded and our society safe, with justice done to the murderer. I personally would rather have my tax dollars spent on hard-working Americans rather than criminals (going along with that, do away with the rehabilitation theory). Supporting a person for life in prison is A LOT of money that is not needed to be spent. Of course, not everyone should get the death penalty, it should be limited to extreme crimes that are close to 100% in assurance that the criminal committed the crime.
WTF are you talking about? It costs more in legal fees to kill criminals opposed to housing and feeding them for life. Why is the death penalty justified? "Eye for an Eye", dude the death penalty is eye for a tooth. After all it's proven to be racist and innacurate. As a different approach to the death penalty, I have suggested that we imprison hardened criminals in 3rd world country prisons. That would be an excellent deterrent,as what person would want to be kept in the Congo? We could easily afford to send them over on plane, hell if we can afford to take care of them for life, or kill them, why not export them? If they even have a trace amount of intellect, they won't even attempt to escape, because the savages will probably eat them!
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
kal-el said:
I agree with the first part, but in most prisons there are all kind of worship groups and other things to give you a false sense of happiness.
It depends on the person, mostly

WTF are you talking about? It costs more in legal fees to kill criminals opposed to housing and feeding them for life.
How? All that food you have to pay for, how is that more than a bullet or a lethal injection that only happens once? As for legal fees, the guy had to go to court if he was is in prison for life or having the death penalty. Wouldn't it be the same?
Why is the death penalty justified? "Eye for an Eye", dude the death penalty is eye for a tooth.
Because they committed a serious crime against all of society, we can do with them what we want to (to a point, of course-torture is worse than death).
After all it's proven to be racist and innacurate.
How?
As a different approach to the death penalty, I have suggested that we imprison hardened criminals in 3rd world country prisons. That would be an excellent deterrent,as what person would want to be kept in the Congo? We could easily afford to send them over on plane, hell if we can afford to take care of them for life, or kill them, why not export them? If they even have a trace amount of intellect, they won't even attempt to escape, because the savages will probably eat them!
If I were them, I'd rather be dead and put out of my misery than that. Maybe give the prisoners a choice or something. Anyway, would the third world countries even let us take prisoners? It would cost them money to pay for the prisoners too.
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hornburger said:
How? All that food you have to pay for, how is that more than a bullet or a lethal injection that only happens once? As for legal fees, the guy had to go to court if he was is in prison for life or having the death penalty. Wouldn't it be the same?
Not entirely.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html
http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

Because they committed a serious crime against all of society, we can do with them what we want to (to a point, of course-torture is worse than death).
Of course it is, but who says we have the right to decide who lives and dies? Nowhere did I say anything about torture. Iwas merely providing a solution to our overcrowding phoenomena, and it would be one hell of a detterent!:2razz:


Since 1973, 37% of death row cases have indeed been overturned, by either the person being innocent, or because of post-conviction laws.
http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/northamerica/usa040423.html?view=Standard

In Texas, Afro-Americans make up only 20% of the population, but they make up 75% of death row cases: http://www.counterpunch.org/deathpenalty.html

If I were them, I'd rather be dead and put out of my misery than that. Maybe give the prisoners a choice or something. Anyway, would the third world countries even let us take prisoners? It would cost them money to pay for the prisoners too.
Give prisoners the choice? Are you serious? You would give a convicted serial killer a choice? Dude, how could they decline, we are the world's richest country, and one of the best humanitarian helps. I say if they don't like it, they're SOL. (**** out of luck) Yes, it would cost them money, which we could provide, there's a simple solution to your overcrowding problem.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
kal-el said:
I still don't know how I can believe that some legal fees, a one-shot cost, would be more expensive than 70 years of food and lodging and legal costs assosiated with it.

Of course it is, but who says we have the right to decide who lives and dies? Nowhere did I say anything about torture. Iwas merely providing a solution to our overcrowding phoenomena, and it would be one hell of a detterent!:2razz:
Well, intent, malice, circumstances, etc. would have to be considered.

Since 1973, 37% of death row cases have indeed been overturned, by either the person being innocent, or because of post-conviction laws.
http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/northamerica/usa040423.html?view=Standard
Yes, yes, that's why the jury needs to have more proof and almost 100% assurance that the convicted did the said crime.

In Texas, Afro-Americans make up only 20% of the population, but they make up 75% of death row cases: http://www.counterpunch.org/deathpenalty.html
That's because Afro-Americans are, on the whole, poorer and have more unstable families than whites, Asians, etc. Their lack of money is a big reason why so many more blacks are put in jail and put to death than other races. Poverty and unstable families are two huge factories in determining the causes of crime.

Give prisoners the choice? Are you serious? You would give a convicted serial killer a choice? Dude, how could they decline, we are the world's richest country, and one of the best humanitarian helps. I say if they don't like it, they're SOL. (**** out of luck) Yes, it would cost them money, which we could provide, there's a simple solution to your overcrowding problem.
lol, okay maybe not give them a choice, you're right there. But it would depend on how much money we would have to give them, because it might turn out to be a lot more than it would if the prisoner stayed in the U.S.
 
Top Bottom