Lambdadelta Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 As long as there are groups of people, there will be war. If you decide to be Mr. pacifist nation, you better ally yourself with some nation that has a powerful army. If not, someone who accepts war will take over your puny nation, and defend it with an armed force. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Quote There is no order and no meaning, there is only the truth of The Signal. The Signal ever transmits from here to the eyes and ears of the 'verse. Can't Stop The Signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikol Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Oh realism, the brutal reality of IR. Quote Ikol, Proud member of Terminus Est. Moderator of http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticsandWar/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 Si vis pacem, para bellum. Well someone needs to get that message. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-usa-defense-budget-idUSBREA1N1IO20140224 According to statistics provided by the office of California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst, the current annual cost for maintaining an inmate in a state prison is $47,102. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, however, places the number at $44,563. vs. But the alternative-the death penalty-may cost taxpayers even more. Published reports by both the Northern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and USA Today say it costs an additional $90,000 a year, including the cost of appeals, to house prisoners on death row than in the general inmate population. Average time on death row is 14.83 years, so about $1.3 million. The average life sentence varies too much, but it is 25-life, so it is about $1.1 million at the least. The time between execution and sentence needs to be lessened. It is still more effective for people with ~30 years or more in prison for life. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambdadelta Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Well someone needs to get that message. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-usa-defense-budget-idUSBREA1N1IO20140224 The US military budget is already much larger than any other country's, even those with more population and/or land area than the US. Some (in the scheme of things, small) cuts aren't going to overly crimp the US's ability to defend itself and its interests. Average time on death row is 14.83 years, so about $1.3 million. The problem isn't the death penalty itself, but the ridiculous amount of time someone is kept imprisoned between their conviction and their execution. 1 Quote There is no order and no meaning, there is only the truth of The Signal. The Signal ever transmits from here to the eyes and ears of the 'verse. Can't Stop The Signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 The problem isn't the death penalty itself, but the ridiculous amount of time someone is kept imprisoned between their conviction and their execution.No, the "problem" you are describing is the fact that we want to make absolutely sure we're right before we impose an irreversible punishment. How horrible of us! There is never a legitimate reason to kill another person. As such, there is never a legitimate reason for a society to do so. The death penalty taints every citizen in that criminal's death. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 22, 2014 Author Share Posted March 22, 2014 No, the "problem" you are describing is the fact that we want to make absolutely sure we're right before we impose an irreversible punishment. How horrible of us! There is never a legitimate reason to kill another person. As such, there is never a legitimate reason for a society to do so. The death penalty taints every citizen in that criminal's death. Ok. Have your tax dollars wasted on people who are a threat to society and will never be released, but have a very slight chance of breaking out and killing someone else, or killing someone in prison. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I don't believe that anyone is irredeemable. And an undue focus on punishment over rehabilitation is a more upsetting flaw in the system than long sentences (though I will admit that in many cases, the latter is driven by the former). Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambdadelta Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 There is never a legitimate reason to kill another person. As such, there is never a legitimate reason for a society to do so. The death penalty taints every citizen in that criminal's death. I fundamentally disagree. It is appropriate for people to fear the consequences of breaking the law, and it is appropriate for the State to make sure the people fear the consequences of breaking the law - since the laws (and the state in general) only exist for the safety, security and general welfare of the people. The most fearsome punishment is death, which makes it appropriate for the most heinous crimes against the people. I don't believe that anyone is irredeemable. I agree. The question is, does everybody deserve to be redeemed? I don't think child molesters and murderers deserve that chance. See above. 1 Quote There is no order and no meaning, there is only the truth of The Signal. The Signal ever transmits from here to the eyes and ears of the 'verse. Can't Stop The Signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Sociological studies show that the death penalty does not function as a deterrent. Its punitive value is the only value that could justify it. Since punishment is not, in my opinion, a legitimate goal if the justice system, the death penalty is wholly inappropriate. Also, fear is not the only way to ensure compliance with the law. Nor is it, in my opinion, the most effective way. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Sociological studies show that the death penalty does not function as a deterrent. ^ This So, you're left with an economic justification or a misguided sense of vengeance. Which will it be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambdadelta Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Sociological studies show that the death penalty does not function as a deterrent. Studies whose methodologies and interpretations of data are disputed. The only way you could accurately determine that is if you had two versions of the Universe, one where a certain jurisdiction does not execute people and another where they do. Obviously, this is impossible to achieve (at least at this point). On the other hand, I can conclude that the re-offending rate for those executed is zero percent - which is better than any rehabilitation program short of total brainwashing could achieve. Also, fear is not the only way to ensure compliance with the law. Nor is it, in my opinion, the most effective way. All methods of ensuring compliance with law ultimately boil down to fear - be it of violence against one's rights (eg. imprisonment, restrictions on ownership, travel), property (eg. fines, seizure of assets) or their body (eg. corporal punishment and the death penalty), all of which are legitimately conducted by the State in a great many jurisdictions around the world with the effect of disincentivising criminal action. That said, So, you're left with an economic justification or a misguided sense of vengeance. Which will it be? I'll take the economic justification too. 1 Quote There is no order and no meaning, there is only the truth of The Signal. The Signal ever transmits from here to the eyes and ears of the 'verse. Can't Stop The Signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 23, 2014 Author Share Posted March 23, 2014 Studies whose methodologies and interpretations of data are disputed. The only way you could accurately determine that is if you had two versions of the Universe, one where a certain jurisdiction does not execute people and another where they do. Execution works better than the Ministry of Love in 1984 (the book) And also, Grillick, would you grab the $20 sitting on my desk if I was pointing a gun at you? I'm not saying that robbery should be punishable by death, but would you? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I wouldn't grab it in any event. It's not mine. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tymyer0210 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Funnily enough, I remember Obama speaking out in favour of the death penalty after the SCOTUS ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana. Unfortunately, since criminal punishments are (largely) the provenance of the State governments and changing the Constitution is quite difficult, the fault here lies on the shoulders of the SCOTUS, not on Obama's. See the following: Yes please. Send the profits of their labour to the victim/the victim's family. Who cares what obama said he is one of the worst presidents we have ever had. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tymyer0210 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 And those protesters who use the bible to say the government has no right to take away life should read it again. Where do you think the saying "a life for a life, an eye for an eye" comes from? The Bible encourages the death penalty. Read Deuteronomy again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedArmy BushMan Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 And those protesters who use the bible to say the government has no right to take away life should read it again. Where do you think the saying "a life for a life, an eye for an eye" comes from? The Bible encourages the death penalty. Read Deuteronomy again. Well yes and no. Jesus was pretty anti violence regardless the situation, he even stopped Peter (I think it was Peter) from killing people that were trying to arrest/kill them. But everyone who wasn't Jesus was pretty pro "eye for an eye". DISCLAIMER: This could be wrong it's been forever since I paid attention during church. Quote Glory to the divine bush for he protects. When evil flies over head in his bombers, he will not see targets, only bushes. When his army of darkness comes to harm you, they shall get lost in the endless bush. The bush loves you, as you love the bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicole1 Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I'd rather have a thousand guilty people go free than have one innocent person executed. I'm sorry, but that is way too idealistic. I mean in the short term sure, you feel good and the one man or woman doesn't get punished, but wait a little while. How many people will those thousand guilty people hurt or kill before you realize your mistake? I'd punish all 1001 people because I'm not going to let more innocents get hurt because of pure idealism. That's why I always have a problem with Batman. He had every chance to kill The Joker, Killer Croc, Scarecrow, etc. before they hurt or killed anyone else, but he didn't. Sometimes death is a punishment best suited for people who can't be redeemed. It saves money at the least (and I'm not one who cares about how they die. I'm sure a bullet is cheaper than most other forms, and there are ways to kill people that are even less expensive and less messy if you care). I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent, but it's the most efficient choice for handling criminals who are never going to be free anyway (and for that matter, we need to repair the justice system so that way things are less insanely handled). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jidithrambus Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 i'd rather have no guilty people go free and we stop imprisoning so many people on petty charges, like drug use. maybe then we'll have the money to deliberate on life sentence cases. shoot people who are actively murdering a bunch of people, sure. i feel you, sort of, on the Batman villain thing. it's still not treating the root of the problem though, which is the conditions that raise death row inmates in the first place 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 I actually have to do a paper on this now... I'll post here when done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I'm sorry, but that is way too idealistic. I mean in the short term sure, you feel good and the one man or woman doesn't get punished, but wait a little while. How many people will those thousand guilty people hurt or kill before you realize your mistake? I'd punish all 1001 people because I'm not going to let more innocents get hurt because of pure idealism. That's why I always have a problem with Batman. He had every chance to kill The Joker, Killer Croc, Scarecrow, etc. before they hurt or killed anyone else, but he didn't. Sometimes death is a punishment best suited for people who can't be redeemed. It saves money at the least (and I'm not one who cares about how they die. I'm sure a bullet is cheaper than most other forms, and there are ways to kill people that are even less expensive and less messy if you care). I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent, but it's the most efficient choice for handling criminals who are never going to be free anyway (and for that matter, we need to repair the justice system so that way things are less insanely handled). Of course, there's also the middle road option of not executing anyone, but punishing the guilty people (and maybe, for a time, a few innocents). Execution is irreversible, and therefore unjustifiable in an imperfect system of proving guilt. As I said earlier, I don't believe there is anyone who is irredeemable. Unless we can be absolutely certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that the person being executed is guilty (and, as described elsewhere in this thread, that is impossible given a non-omniscient justice system), then simply saving money is not a sufficient excuse to end a life. 1 Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenorix Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I'd rather have a thousand guilty people go free than have one innocent person executed. I can't stand moral absolutists. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted April 5, 2014 Author Share Posted April 5, 2014 Of course, there's also the middle road option of not executing anyone, but punishing the guilty people (and maybe, for a time, a few innocents). Execution is irreversible, and therefore unjustifiable in an imperfect system of proving guilt. As I said earlier, I don't believe there is anyone who is irredeemable. Unless we can be absolutely certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that the person being executed is guilty (and, as described elsewhere in this thread, that is impossible given a non-omniscient justice system), then simply saving money is not a sufficient excuse to end a life. Maybe in Cali the people don't want prison. In Texas, we have cartels on a bigger scale than Cali's. Maybe that may have something to do with it... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedArmy BushMan Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 Maybe in Cali the people don't want prison. In Texas, we have cartels on a bigger scale than Cali's. Maybe that may have something to do with it... It's true. I've been told to avoid boarder towns because I'm white and blonde. Children are in even more danger than I am. Come 21st birthday I'm getting a handgun and applying for a conceal and carry licenses so I can keep it in my car. Though last I heard Mexican civilians are fighting back (and at times winning) against the cartels. Problem is this is making them more violent to try to show power and regain control. Some parts of Cali are bad (parts of Fresno, LA, etc) but those usually are gangs or small scale. 1 Quote Glory to the divine bush for he protects. When evil flies over head in his bombers, he will not see targets, only bushes. When his army of darkness comes to harm you, they shall get lost in the endless bush. The bush loves you, as you love the bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 Maybe in Cali the people don't want prison. In Texas, we have cartels on a bigger scale than Cali's. Maybe that may have something to do with it...What does California have to do with any of this? You don't think I hail from that dump, do you? Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedArmy BushMan Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 What does California have to do with any of this? You don't think I hail from that dump, do you? Not going to lie. I assumed you did. 1 Quote Glory to the divine bush for he protects. When evil flies over head in his bombers, he will not see targets, only bushes. When his army of darkness comes to harm you, they shall get lost in the endless bush. The bush loves you, as you love the bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.