I think capitol punishment is unconstitutional, and should be fucking abolished

[Mel "fuck kikes" Gibson]

Mob mentality pussies, and emotional, vengefull lawmakers have the audacity to say taking a human life is wrong, while at the same time punishing it by taking a human life, either with death, or life inprisonment.

I believe any prison sentence, in excess of 20 years, for any number of crimes is cruel, and unusual punishment. We can go overseas, kill babies, mothers, and family men, but if some stuck up suburban facist bitch gets its skull peeled, its a big deal.

The problem is most people don't understand how long 20 years is. It is a lifetime in and of itself, and definately fits the severity of pre-meditated murder. Confinement in a cell, with no TV, and no freedom in and of itself is severe enough. Prisons need to be made more humane then now. I believe the overcrowding in county jails, and in booking, and processing rooms, where people aren't even proven guilty, is upmost cruel, and unusual punishment. People who do not agree with these statements are either angry, cowardly, or just lack the ability to intelligently examine the facts. They don't comprehend the effects of a 20 year prison sentence, and think hypocrasy is just punishment.

In conclusion, I believe capitol punishment should be abolished, and all prison/jail terms should be served simoultaneously, and no prison sentence should exceed 20 years. I also feel that people say shit like "LOL im gunna kill uzz cuz ill be out in 20 years" When you get out, and 90% of your life was abolished, the thought of returning, would be a good deterrent to re-committing crime.

[abusername]

Mob mentality pussies, and emotional, vengefull lawmakers have the audacity to say taking a human life is wrong, while at the same time punishing it by taking a human life, either with death, or life inprisonment.

I believe any prison sentence, in excess of 20 years, for any number of crimes is cruel, and unusual punishment. We can go overseas, kill babies, mothers, and family men, but if some stuck up suburban facist bitch gets its skull peeled, its a big deal.

The problem is most people don't understand how long 20 years is. It is a lifetime in and of itself, and definately fits the severity of pre-meditated murder. Confinement in a cell, with no TV, and no freedom in and of itself is severe enough. Prisons need to be made more humane then now. I believe the overcrowding in county jails, and in booking, and processing rooms, where people aren't even proven guilty, is upmost cruel, and unusual punishment. People who do not agree with these statements are either angry, cowardly, or just lack the ability to intelligently examine the facts. They don't comprehend the effects of a 20 year prison sentence, and think hypocrasy is just punishment.

In conclusion, I believe capitol punishment should be abolished, and all prison/jail terms should be served simoultaneously, and no prison sentence should exceed 20 years. I also feel that people say shit like "LOL im gunna kill uzz cuz ill be out in 20 years" When you get out, and 90% of your life was abolished, the thought of returning, would be a good deterrent to re-committing crime.


I don't agree with not putting away some people for 20+ - life, Some people are just fucked up and when released will only do wierd and fucked up shit once again.

I think taking someones life by lethal injection is wrong and stupid, you know why? Why give them the quick way out when you can make them die slowly and suffer really fucking bad for the rest of their life in prison.. ? I guess I'm the only one who gets that.

Child killing pedophiles deserve life, dude. How can you disagree?

[Slave of the Beast]

no prison sentence should exceed 20 years.

Say "hi" to your recently released neighbour:

http://hiroshimatelegrafen.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/john-wayne-gacy.jpg

[Mel "fuck kikes" Gibson]

Uh, OK?

[Slave of the Beast]

Uh, OK?

No it's not OK, it's John Wayne Gacy.

[Naffy]

I think you should shut the fuck up.:thumbsup::thumbsup::D

[ArmsMerchant]

Killing people who supposedly killed people because killing people is wrong--this is just insane.

Amazingly, some so-called right to life people approve of government-sanctioned premeditated murder.

While I substantially agree with OP, punishment is not now , nor has it ever been a deterrent. It is simply revenge.

[nshanin]

I don't agree with not putting away some people for 20+ - life, Some people are just fucked up and when released will only do wierd and fucked up shit once again.
That's why you rehabilitate them.

I think taking someones life by lethal injection is wrong and stupid, you know why? Why give them the quick way out when you can make them die slowly and suffer really fucking bad for the rest of their life in prison.. ? I guess I'm the only one who gets that.
Yep, why waste taxpayer dollars and human emotions when we can be sadistic instead?

Child killing pedophiles deserve life, dude. How can you disagree?

This is not the place for trolling.

[freeRadical]

Mob mentality pussies, and emotional, vengefull lawmakers have the audacity to say taking a human life is wrong, while at the same time punishing it by taking a human life, either with death, or life inprisonment.

I believe any prison sentence, in excess of 20 years, for any number of crimes is cruel, and unusual punishment. We can go overseas, kill babies, mothers, and family men, but if some stuck up suburban facist bitch gets its skull peeled, its a big deal.

The problem is most people don't understand how long 20 years is. It is a lifetime in and of itself, and definately fits the severity of pre-meditated murder. Confinement in a cell, with no TV, and no freedom in and of itself is severe enough. Prisons need to be made more humane then now. I believe the overcrowding in county jails, and in booking, and processing rooms, where people aren't even proven guilty, is upmost cruel, and unusual punishment. People who do not agree with these statements are either angry, cowardly, or just lack the ability to intelligently examine the facts. They don't comprehend the effects of a 20 year prison sentence, and think hypocrasy is just punishment.

In conclusion, I believe capitol punishment should be abolished, and all prison/jail terms should be served simoultaneously, and no prison sentence should exceed 20 years. I also feel that people say shit like "LOL im gunna kill uzz cuz ill be out in 20 years" When you get out, and 90% of your life was abolished, the thought of returning, would be a good deterrent to re-committing crime.

HI Driveby !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[patton]

We don't kill people to show that killing people is wrong, we kill murderers to show people that killing innocent people is wrong. There's nothing wrong with killing a murderer, there is on the other hand something deeply wrong with killing an innocent person. There are a lot of people in this world who simply don't deserve the right to live anymore, and need to be killed.

And if prison is such hell, then why are so many criminals not afraid of going to prison?

And do you really think 20 years can fit every crime? People who torture and murder? Child rapists? Ruthless serial killers?
These people simply don't deserve the right to live, much less the right to ever be free again.

[Mel "fuck kikes" Gibson]

The punishment for murder is pretty much the same. What if some dumb piece of shit that kept egging someone on, making threats, or talking about them behind their back got killed? You are assuming all murder victims are innocent. Yes, you get 25 to life for killing multiple minorities, and death for white women, but the punishments are based on race, not innocence. People get life for killing those who are not innocent.

[Mel "fuck kikes" Gibson]

No it's not OK, it's John Wayne Gacy.

So?

[Dog]

So, in your ideal world, dangerous people shouldn't be put to death or be kept away from society?

Brilliant. :facepalm:

Of course, I agree that there are cruel and unusual punishments (often dealt out for drugs), but the idea that violent people who have taken innocent people's lives shouldn't be locked up, simply because it's an inconvenience to them is utterly retarded. Do you really care more about violent murderers than the safety of the public?

[xxombie]

I will express my feelings with song lyrics. :thumbsup:

The United States is one of two remaining industrialized nations to
still use death as a form of punishment. There are approximately 3,000
prisoners currently living on Death Row. No other country in the world
has this many of it's citizens awaiting execution. If you support capital
punishment you support absolute political control at it's sickest
extreme.
Murder, murder, murder, murder
Why must we continue to murder
Those who've been convicted of murder
Enforced under the lie that it's deterrent of murder
Justifies their fucking murder
Sentenced to die
Sentenced to death
Capitol punishment
A tool of the terrorist
It's nothing more than a political weapon
It's not a deterrent
It's not a prevention
Kill one man
Spare another
Our justice system is based on color
Examine the facts
You have to face it
The American's crime is fucking racist
An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind
Politicians who seek enhancement look towards murder for career advancement
They prey on fear and insecurity
To win support of the majority
Endorsing murder under false perceptions
Being tough on crime helps win elections
They're playing God
They have no right
It's premeditated political sacrifice
It's not about a murder or a crime committed
Not what was done, but who fucking did it
It's not about law or even justice
It's all about race and economic status
You can't judge a person by a stereotyped race
You have to look at the individual case
No life's returned by an execution
Another death is no solution
Their justice system is just our burden
The way they treat the average person
What about murder by government agents
Not capital punishment or even containment
These political pawns get away with murder
They're servants to the new world order
You'll see no outside intervention
Not a single death recommendation

[Dog]

I will express my feelings with song lyrics. :thumbsup:

Those are some pretty retarded feelings.

What makes you think it's better to take someone's life by locking them way than by killing them in a fairly quick and painless way? The problem isn't that violent murderers are getting killed (and I'm sure you'd agree if you actually had to look at the crimes of many people on death row), it's that innocents can SOMETIMES get wrongfully accused. That doesn't necessarily mean that the death penalty needs to be taken off the table. Rather, improve the justice system so that innocent people don't get put in jail.

[PROJECT PAT]

Mob mentality pussies, and emotional, vengefull lawmakers have the audacity to say taking a human life is wrong, while at the same time punishing it by taking a human life, either with death, or life inprisonment.

I believe any prison sentence, in excess of 20 years, for any number of crimes is cruel, and unusual punishment. We can go overseas, kill babies, mothers, and family men, but if some stuck up suburban facist bitch gets its skull peeled, its a big deal.

The problem is most people don't understand how long 20 years is. It is a lifetime in and of itself, and definately fits the severity of pre-meditated murder. Confinement in a cell, with no TV, and no freedom in and of itself is severe enough. Prisons need to be made more humane then now. I believe the overcrowding in county jails, and in booking, and processing rooms, where people aren't even proven guilty, is upmost cruel, and unusual punishment. People who do not agree with these statements are either angry, cowardly, or just lack the ability to intelligently examine the facts. They don't comprehend the effects of a 20 year prison sentence, and think hypocrasy is just punishment.

In conclusion, I believe capitol punishment should be abolished, and all prison/jail terms should be served simoultaneously, and no prison sentence should exceed 20 years. I also feel that people say shit like "LOL im gunna kill uzz cuz ill be out in 20 years" When you get out, and 90% of your life was abolished, the thought of returning, would be a good deterrent to re-committing crime.

Obviously it's not unconstitutional. It was even more widely used when they actually wrote the constitution than it is now. I do, however, think that the electric chair and lethal injection are cruel and unusual.

[xxombie]

Those are some pretty retarded feelings.

What makes you think it's better to take someone's life by locking them way than by killing them in a fairly quick and painless way? The problem isn't that violent murderers are getting killed (and I'm sure you'd agree if you actually had to look at the crimes of many people on death row), it's that innocents can SOMETIMES get wrongfully accused. That doesn't necessarily mean that the death penalty needs to be taken off the table. Rather, improve the justice system so that innocent people don't get put in jail.

Exactly, but the justice system will always be biased, so letting the justice system kill people is fucking dumb.

[Mel "fuck kikes" Gibson]

If you have a problem with a murderer, get your own justice, and don't be the worst type of bitch in existence, a snitch. And if you fuck up, you'll be glad there is no capitol punishment. I can't understand why all people don't think like this.

[crazzyass]

It should only be used when evidence of premediated murder is beyond conclusive. I think it makes perfect sense. You intentionally rob someone's life and then ruin their families life as well, you've earned death.


And those who criticize eye for an eye...what would you suggest? Not punish people who are guilty? That's the point of a Justice System. It isn't revenge unless the victim or his/her family does it themself. (which is justified)


The "mob mentality" is more than justified. What if someone killed your spouse or child? If that happened to my family the murderer better hope the cops find them first. :mad:

You can all that "crude", or whatever way you want to arrogantly disregard it, but the vast overwhelming majority of people would kill the murderer of their child. And they are justified in doing so. However, to keep it from being revenge, we do it through the Justice System. Makes perfect sense.

[Dog]

It doesn't have to be the extreme, where the death penalty is off the table for everyone. I think they just need to rework the system where only the undeniably guilty (of the given heinous crime) would face death. There's no point in letting some mass murderer use up taxpayer money in a jail.

[PROJECT PAT]

It doesn't have to be the extreme, where the death penalty is off the table for everyone. I think they just need to rework the system where only the undeniably guilty (of the given heinous crime) would face death. There's no point in letting some mass murderer use up taxpayer money in a jail.

because jail is like a resort and everyone is just there to mooch off the system. Also prisoner's eat better than most animals. /sarcasm

[Dog]

because jail is like a resort and everyone is just there to mooch off the system. Also prisoner's eat better than most animals. /sarcasm

I never said it was a resort. The fact remains that collectively they use up quite a bit of space and money. If someone is essentially undeniably guilty and is going to be rotting in jail for their entire life, then there's no reason to drag the whole ordeal out and waste space and money in the process. The actual method of death also needs to change. I hear the Chinese use a single bullet to the head...quick, and it costs 25 cents, as opposed to the costly procedures they use in America just so they don't disturb all of the pussies in this country.

[Wither]

I don't like the death penalty either, but not because I don't think murderers shouldn't be killed, they should be.

I just don't trust the government enough to give it the power to execute citizens.

[PROJECT PAT]

I never said it was a resort. The fact remains that collectively they use up quite a bit of space and money. If someone is essentially undeniably guilty and is going to be rotting in jail for their entire life, then there's no reason to drag the whole ordeal out and waste space and money in the process. The actual method of death also needs to change. I hear the Chinese use a single bullet to the head...quick, and it costs 25 cents, as opposed to the costly procedures they use in America just so they don't disturb all of the pussies in this country.

quit fucking acting like you're the one getting the raw end of the deal because you have to pay income tax when they're the ones locked in cells, getting treated worse than dogs by the guards, and having to fight each other just so that they can keep gruel they get for breakfast.

[Dog]

I don't like the death penalty either, but not because I don't think murderers shouldn't be killed, they should be.

I just don't trust the government enough to give it the power to execute citizens.

Precisely. Anyone who starts whining about how it's so barbaric or terrible to kill murderous shitbags almost instantly goes down in my book as a dumbass. :thumbsup:

Besides, plenty of people are forced to be imprisoned for their entire lives for crimes they didn't commit. The death penalty isn't the problem, but the fact that the legal system can't always distinguish between guilty and innocent. If they want to take the death penalty off the table because people might actually be innocent, then they should take off long sentences too.

The point is: Fight the problem at its source. You guys are focused on innocent people getting the death penalty. You should be focused on improving the legal system such that innocents aren't ever in such a position in the first place.

[Dog]

quit fucking acting like you're the one getting the raw end of the deal because you have to pay income tax when they're the ones locked in cells, getting treated worse than dogs by the guards, and having to fight each other just so that they can keep gruel they get for breakfast.

Stop putting words into my mouth, moron. Many prisons are facing a problem with overcrowding and poor funding (meaning poor staffing and security measures, making the entire facility more suspectible to problems). There is no point in throwing money down the drain for the sake of social parasites. End of discussion.

The only valid point is the one that xxombie brought up, regarding the fact that innocent people can get caught by the system. If that variable could be eliminated, there would be no reason to NOT have the death penalty for certain levels of crime.

[PROJECT PAT]

Stop putting words into my mouth, moron. Many prisons are facing a problem with overcrowding and poor funding (meaning poor staffing and security measures, making the entire facility more suspectible to problems). There is no point in throwing money down the drain for the sake of social parasites. End of discussion.

The only valid point is the one that xxombie brought up, regarding the fact that innocent people can get caught by the system. If that variable could be eliminated, there would be no reason to NOT have the death penalty for certain levels of crime.

I'm all for shooting social parasites in the face and getting it over with. Don't get me wrong, but there are a lot of people in prison who are good human beings. The majority of people in prisons are there for drug offenses. Is it really a class c felony 15 year punishment type crime to get caught with a measly $800 worth of cocaine?

Does that seem right to you?

[Rust]

there is on the other hand something deeply wrong with killing an innocent person.

But there's nothing wrong with a system that has allowed numerous innocent people to be sentenced to death and thus will inevitably kill an innocent person (if it hasn't already)... ?

[rabbitweed]

There's no point in letting some mass murderer use up taxpayer money in a jail.

I can remember reading somewhere that maintaining the whole death sentence system, with all the legal wrangling etc etc, costs a lot more than it would to just incarcerate those found guilty, even taking into account long sentences.

Can anyone confirm that or better yet, provide a linl?:D

[JustAnotherAsshole]

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/Brian_totse/1219366362954.jpg

[Rust]

I can remember reading somewhere that maintaining the whole death sentence system, with all the legal wrangling etc etc, costs a lot more than it would to just incarcerate those found guilty, even taking into account long sentences.

Can anyone confirm that or better yet, provide a linl?:D


Sure:

"Maryland reinstated the death penalty in 1978 as a sentencing option for individuals convicted of felony homicide. Since then, five inmates have been executed and five others are on death row awaiting execution. Much has been written about the morality of the death penalty, and many empirical studies have investigated whether the presence of such a statute deters homicides. However there is limited rigorous empirical research on whether the death penalty increases or decreases the cost of prosecution and incarceration. To address this issue, we initiated a study to assess the death penalty’s costs to Maryland taxpayers. We study the lifetime costs of all homicides eligible to receive the death penalty where the homicide occurred between 1978 and 1999.

We found that an average capital-eligible case in which prosecutors did not seek the death penalty will cost Maryland taxpayers more than $1.1 million, including $870,000 in prison costs and $250,000 in costs of adjudication.

A capital-eligible case in which prosecutors unsuccessfully sought the death penalty will cost $1.8 million, $700,000 more than a comparable case in which the death penalty was not sought. Prison costs are about $950,000, and the cost of adjudication is $850,000, more than three times higher than in cases which were not capitally prosecuted.

An average capital-eligible case resulting in a death sentence will cost approximately $3 million, $1.9 million more than a case where the death penalty was not sought. In these cases, prison costs total about $1.3 million while the remaining $1.7 million are associated with adjudication."

The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland. 2008. URBAN INSTITUTE. Justice Policy Center.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411625_md_death_penalty.pdf



"Constitutional safeguards, both procedural and substantive, have been required by the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure a fair process for the defendant. These include protections to ensure due process, effective counsel, a fair and impartial jury, and proportionality of the punishment. Limited plea bargaining, lengthy pretrial motions, extensive investigations, increased use of expert witnesses, voir dire, peremptertory challenges, and extensive trial and appeal processes add significantly to the cost of the death penalty system. Thus, advocates of capital punishment who base their arguments on cost-effectiveness are in error. A constitutional death penalty system and execution process costs more than does life imprisonment -- an alternative that both punishes the convicted defendant and protects society. If the goal is a more effective criminal justice system, retentionists should reassess the overall practicality and desirability of continuing capital punishment when its costs, both financially and morally, undermine the system. 250 footnotes and sample questionnaire."

Cost of Taking a Life: Dollars and Sense of the Death Penalty.

University of California Davis Law Review Volume:18 Issue:4 Dated (Summer 1985) Pages:1221-1273

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=111119

[johnplywd]

Kill the killers, rape the rapist, Molest the molesters into truly being sorry for their crimes. These scum bags will never learn until they are dealt with harshly.

[Dog]

I can remember reading somewhere that maintaining the whole death sentence system, with all the legal wrangling etc etc, costs a lot more than it would to just incarcerate those found guilty, even taking into account long sentences.

Can anyone confirm that or better yet, provide a linl?:D

I suppose that makes sense. If that's true then I guess I'll change my previous stance.

I guess it's not so much that I care about the death penalty staying, but my thought was that since it was already in place, as long as we could make sure it was actually getting rid of people who deserved it, there wouldn't be a problem.

[JustAnotherAsshole]

Kill the killers, rape the rapist, Molest the molesters into truly being sorry for their crimes. These scum bags will never learn until they are dealt with harshly.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Revenge solves nothing. It doesn't remove the pain caused by these people, and it doesn't make up for their crimes. It only puts blood on another set of hands. In the case of State-Sponsored executions, it puts the blood on the hands of everyone, seeing as we all fund it with our taxes.

[Dog]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Revenge solves nothing. It doesn't remove the pain caused by these people, and it doesn't make up for their crimes. It only puts blood on another set of hands. In the case of State-Sponsored executions, it puts the blood on the hands of everyone, seeing as we all fund it with our taxes.

"Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" sounds nice, but it doesn't actually make much sense in the real world.

The implication of the quote is that 50% of the world is going to get their eye taken out, and that that 50% will then respond by pulling out everyone else's eye. In actuality:

1) Criminals always make up a relatively small portion of society, so...only the number of criminals times two would be metaphorically blinded.

2) After a hypothetical criminal has "blinded" his victim, the damage is already done. If by blinding the criminal in turn you stop him from committing future crimes and deter other criminals, I would ask again, what is the problem?

[Jon "Fuck Asians" Stewart]

Every person executed saves 4 to 18 innocent lives. It should also be noted that 1372 people sentenced to death are black and 1805 are white. Black people only make up 12.8% of the US population. Don't give me any racial bias BS.

[ZeroMalarki]

I've got completely mixed views:

Proven serial killers with sadistic sociopathic views, whilst often very intelligent have no place on this earth. They are often unable to be cured or are caused by their society, they are just -abormalities-.

Having these men around costs money when they could just be shot and executed.

Same as child molesting paedophiles - do you think that whenever they are released they are going to be back to normal?




On the other hand, the justice system is never completely infallible - can you really say someone is proven guilty without any doubt?

[JustAnotherAsshole]

"Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" sounds nice, but it doesn't actually make much sense in the real world.

The implication of the quote is that 50% of the world is going to get their eye taken out, and that that 50% will then respond by pulling out everyone else's eye. In actuality:

1) Criminals always make up a relatively small portion of society, so...only the number of criminals times two would be metaphorically blinded.

2) After a hypothetical criminal has "blinded" his victim, the damage is already done. If by blinding the criminal in turn you stop him from committing future crimes and deter other criminals, I would ask again, what is the problem?

The quote isn't meant to be taken literally. :mad:

The idea of that saying is that Revenge is fruitless.

Every person executed saves 4 to 18 innocent lives. It should also be noted that 1372 people sentenced to death are black and 1805 are white. Black people only make up 12.8% of the US population. Don't give me any racial bias BS.

Poverty breeds crime. Look at how many blacks live in poverty in the U.S. (By percentage) compared to how many whites live in poverty.

[Dog]

The quote isn't meant to be taken literally. :mad:

The idea of that saying is that Revenge is fruitless.

Lulz, I know it isn't literal. I was trying to show that the problem the quote presents isn't really an issue in real life, IMO.

If some guy purposely kills your friend, family member, etc., what exactly is wrong with killing him? It won't reverse the damage, but it will give you a sense of justice and it'll take a murderer of the street. The idea that it's fruitless seems very inaccurate...

[mxs]

Lulz, I know it isn't literal. I was trying to show that the problem the quote presents isn't really an issue in real life, IMO.

If some guy purposely kills your friend, family member, etc., what exactly is wrong with killing him? It won't reverse the damage, but it will give you a sense of justice and it'll take a murderer of the street. The idea that it's fruitless seems very inaccurate...

That's called vengeance not justice

The way I look at it, it should depend on the circumstances of the crime. If the guy kill 20 people than yes, he should be put on death row. If he has a manslaughter charge he shouldn't do 5 years + for something he didn't do on purpose. The one problem with not putting people away for murder for 20 + is that all the families of the victims wouldn't be to happy and it would only cause more problems than it fixed. And to the OP jail life isn't as bad as your making it seem. It should stay the same for the most part but parole should be more widely available for people who actually get there head straight. Most gang members who kill aren't afraid to go back to jail so those are the type of people who shouldn't be let out. For the most part i think its all circumstancial

[Jon "Fuck Asians" Stewart]

Poverty breeds crime. Look at how many blacks live in poverty in the U.S. (By percentage) compared to how many whites live in poverty.

Incorrect.

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050213_mapping.htm

In almost every category, black people commit more crimes.

[enkrypt0r]

Why don't we just kill people who push for capitol punishment? Then we wouldn't ave to listen to them talk about it.

[Valkoinen Kuolema]

I think you're a fucking idiot, but you have a cool username.

[Dog]

That's called vengeance not justice

The way I look at it, it should depend on the circumstances of the crime. If the guy kill 20 people than yes, he should be put on death row. If he has a manslaughter charge he shouldn't do 5 years + for something he didn't do on purpose. The one problem with not putting people away for murder for 20 + is that all the families of the victims wouldn't be to happy and it would only cause more problems than it fixed. And to the OP jail life isn't as bad as your making it seem. It should stay the same for the most part but parole should be more widely available for people who actually get there head straight. Most gang members who kill aren't afraid to go back to jail so those are the type of people who shouldn't be let out. For the most part i think its all circumstancial

Eye for an eye is essentially the definition of justice. Though, of course, I won't think that a manslaughter offender should be killed for what was an accident. I'm talking about actual intentional crimes here.

[rabbitweed]

Sure:

"[I]Maryland reinstated the death penalty in 1978...

Thanks for that, though that is just the case of one state in one country.

My stance is now thus; anti death penalty (it's a waste of money), but pro prison-labour, but NOT contracting out prison labour to private companies.

[nshanin]

1. The future is determined.
2. We cannot be held responsible for our actions.
3. Thus, all those who are in prison are not responsible for their actions.
4. Thus, we must release every prisoner and offer them an apology and compensation for time served.

Sounds foolproof to me.

[Rust]

Thanks for that, though that is just the case of one state in one country.


The first one, maybe, not the second citation. Geez...

[aussiedude]

american prison system: EPIC FAIL

capital punishment: FAIL

my reasoning, well it may have to do with the fact that i have studied corrections and criminal justice

[patton]

1. The future is determined.
2. We cannot be held responsible for our actions.
3. Thus, all those who are in prison are not responsible for their actions.
4. Thus, we must release every prisoner and offer them an apology and compensation for time served.

Sounds foolproof to me.

If the future is pre-determined and therefore prisoners shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, then why should it be wrong for us to keep them in prison?
Can't the fact that they should stay in prison or be executed be pre-determined?

If the only thing controlling what happens in this world is fate, then isn't it their fate to stay in prison?
Why are the police the only ones cheating fate here, why don't you think the criminals are cheating fate?

[nshanin]

If the future is pre-determined and therefore prisoners shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, then why should it be wrong for us to keep them in prison?
Can't the fact that they should stay in prison or be executed be pre-determined?

If the only thing controlling what happens in this world is fate, then isn't it their fate to stay in prison?
Why are the police the only ones cheating fate here, why don't you think the criminals are cheating fate?

Deep, deep misinterpretation on the nature of fate. Mull it over and get back to me in a few days if you haven't seen your error.

[Struwwelpeter]

JustAnotherAsshole there are more white people in poverty than black people by occurance of sheer population. The black-to-white criminality ratio lies in hereditary (genetic) predisposition which they acquired via natural selection living in Africa for thousands of years. Poverty can indeed breed crime but the discrepancy is so large that it cannot be chalked up to that. Blacks are less than sixteen percent of the population but make up fifty-two percent of all murderers, and more than fifty percent of those in the prison system. They also surpass whites in rape, assault and gangbanging activity. One does not need to murder, rape, assault or practice in gangbanging to survive poverty. This is a matter of nature over nurture.

The death penalty is sound, all prisoners should be given a speedy trial with one appeal if prosecuted for murder. No more than six months on death row, period.

[Irukanji]

Get fucked.

And it's cheaper to kill someone then it is to keep someone in jail for life....

[JustAnotherAsshole]

Get fucked.

And it's cheaper to kill someone then it is to keep someone in jail for life....

It's actually not.

Somebody posted an article on that a while ago, probably in this thread.

Turns out that it's actually a fair bit more expensive to execute somebody rather than imprison them.

[Nitronick]

They should bring back torture for mass murderers and peadophiles.

[Struwwelpeter]

It's actually not.

Somebody posted an article on that a while ago, probably in this thread.

Turns out that it's actually a fair bit more expensive to execute somebody rather than imprison them.

No it is not.

It is more expensive to keep someone on death row for decades, allowing them to exhaust all possible appeal processes, than it is to imprison them for a comparative amount of time.

It is not more expensive, however, to kill them six months after prosecution.

[PROJECT PAT]

Yeah our current system of executions is just incomprehensibly retarded. They should just be shot in the back of the head/hanged as soon as a guilty verdict is read instead of this stupid fucking expensive electric chair horseshit. Even if you look at it from a human rights standpoint I don't possible see how hooking someone up to some fucked up chair and running thousands of volts of electricity through them does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. That's like some sci fi shit.

Lethal injection is just as bad. The current system uses some backwards ass complicated drugs that are difficult to administer, extremely painful and just an all around pain in the ass of everyone involved.

[Struwwelpeter]

Yeah it's ironic that execution methods from hundreds of years ago were far more humane than the politically correct methods of today. I say bring back the guillotine. Give them a few minutes on nitrous oxide beforehand. That's not only humane but gratuitous.

[nshanin]

No it is not.

It is more expensive to keep someone on death row for decades, allowing them to exhaust all possible appeal processes, than it is to imprison them for a comparative amount of time.

It is not more expensive, however, to kill them six months after prosecution.

Why not get rid of EVERY amendment?

[Travis Bickle]

The world's already overpopulated, so to me capital punishment makes sense.

[Struwwelpeter]

Nshanin what amendment do you feel protects our citizens from the death penalty?

[Snoopy]

The world's already overpopulated, so to me capital punishment makes sense.

Actually, killing people on mass doesn't even dent the increasing world population. World wars, epidemic diseases, they've both failed at even slightly halting the increase of humans on this planet.

We need to think of more drastic measures.

[Struwwelpeter]

The overpopulation problem can be chalked up to White Consumerism and and aid/feminine treatment of other lands. If White nations were to boycott Asian nations and push all non-whites out of Africa, and then sealed the coastal African borders, and ceased African Aid, the rest of the world would go out with a whimper.

[Snoopy]

If White nations were to boycott Asian nations and push all non-whites out of Africa, and then sealed the coastal African borders, and ceased African Aid, the rest of the world would go out with a whimper.

That would result in a very lulzy war.

[Struwwelpeter]

LOL, so true.

[KillSwitch_J]

push all non-whites out of Africa, and then sealed the coastal African borders, and ceased African Aid, the rest of the world would go out with a whimper.

:facepalm:

Just when I think you can't get any zanier in your thinking, you go and surprise me Jim. you honestly want to remove all non-white africans from their own continent? You really do live in a really weird dream world there Jim.

[Struwwelpeter]

Killswitch it's very unfortunate you had to be born on this already miserable planet. When did I say pushing non-whites out of Africa applied to the black people that inhabit it? Could you not determine I was not talking about the black race of Africa when I mentioned cutting off African aid? When I said push out the non-whites, I meant particularly the Asians, the Chinese to be specific, who are in the process of colonizing Africa as we speak. Africa is a very fertile region in terms of resources such as metal, and the Chinese are taking advantage of this. They have to. Selling the USA and other "white" nations metal is one of their primary means of sustaining a nation of more than a billion brown people.

[KillSwitch_J]

Killswitch it's very unfortunate you had to be born on this already miserable planet.


Not sure how to take that one Jim.:confused:

When did I say pushing non-whites out of Africa applied to the black people that inhabit it? Could you not determine I was not talking about the black race of Africa when I mentioned cutting off African aid?

I guess I made a bad assumption there Jim. Then again. I was basing it on your past posts about african americans.

When I said push out the non-whites, I meant particularly the Asians, the Chinese to be specific, who are in the process of colonizing Africa as we speak. Africa is a very fertile region in terms of resources such as metal, and the Chinese are taking advantage of this. They have to. Selling the USA and other "white" nations metal is one of their primary means of sustaining a nation of more than a billion brown people.

Fair enough.

[dij314]

If clear guidelines for what crimes deserved the death penalty were established wouldn't that allow all the bullshit appeals, etc to be skipped, substantially cutting down on the price of capital punishment?

[a giant pterodactyl]

this thread...they just keep getting 'better' . lol

[a giant pterodactyl]

Say "hi" to your recently released neighbour:

http://hiroshimatelegrafen.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/john-wayne-gacy.jpg

its POGO THE CLOWN, holy shit man, where you been?!?

[supperrfreek]

I would just like to pose one question: for a man who raped, tortured and murdered several people, is lethal injection, the electric chair or even a firing squad really cruel or unusual? He wasn't trying to make the rape and murder painless? was he?

[KillSwitch_J]

I would just like to pose one question: for a man who raped, tortured and murdered several people, is lethal injection, the electric chair or even a firing squad really cruel or unusual? He wasn't trying to make the rape and murder painless? was he?

If you have the right person in jail for that crime, then that person's comfort at the time of their own death shouldn't be an issue.

If however they arrested someone that had nothing whatsoever to do with it (yes this happens a lot), then it becomes an issue, as you don't want to kill an innocent person for something they didn't do.

[supperrfreek]

If you have the right person in jail for that crime, then that person's comfort at the time of their own death shouldn't be an issue.

If however they arrested someone that had nothing whatsoever to do with it (yes this happens a lot), then it becomes an issue, as you don't want to kill an innocent person for something they didn't do.
Assuming (something we all shouldn't do) that using the most accurate technology available do we not have the ability to have convictions where the shadow of doubt is minimal at best. And even if an officer does frame someone for the death penalty, can they not be convicted to murder with that same penalty?

[Aperson444]

I think that we should take

Minor criminals (above misdemeanors and 1st time to 3rd time felons) -- Flog them and jail for 15 years max. Stone them or brand them with hot metal for any attempted escape. A little more for murder and violent crime. Maybe flogging hour every week

Multiple felons -- Use them as testing for research and shooting practice

Capital worthy criminals -- Torture them as much as possible, then give them a slow painful death

Between multiple felon and capital worthy, there should just be firing squad or lethal injection.

Offending soldiers -- Shoot em. They abused their job. Kill em.

[refugee]

ah, it costs more money to keep the killers breathing and in jail. a decent firing squad costs about 15 cents

[KillSwitch_J]

Assuming (something we all shouldn't do) that using the most accurate technology available do we not have the ability to have convictions where the shadow of doubt is minimal at best.

If only there was a way to make sure beyond any doubt, when it comes to sentencing someone to death. Yet we don't live in that world. We live in one were the police are either over worked, biased, prejudiced towards certain groups or individuals, or they just do shotty investigation work from the get go.

Then once they have picked someone up (whether rightly or wrongly), it gets to the court level, where a judge gets to decide which evidence can or can't be shown to a jury. Whether or not that evidence would have cleared a person seems to irrelevant, as it's all up to that one judge. This is strike one against you in court.


And even if an officer does frame someone for the death penalty, can they not be convicted to murder with that same penalty?

I agree that it should be like that, yet isn't, because most of the time, a jury is already brainwashed into taking a cops word over a suspected criminals. Plus cops are very reluctant to investigate one of their own. So after the judge and evidence ruling, this becomes a second strike against you in court.

Then comes your criminal history (if you have one), which they will without hesitation use against you (even if it has nothing to do with the case at hand). That's strike three. Plus you could have another strike against you, depending on how good your lawyer is.

[Valerius]

Then once they have picked someone up (whether rightly or wrongly), it gets to the court level, where a judge gets to decide which evidence can or can't be shown to a jury. Whether or not that evidence would have cleared a person seems to irrelevant, as it's all up to that one judge. This is strike one against you in court.


Well, usually determining what kind of evidence is admitted is done in favor of the defendant. But it can get pretty complicated.

[Agent 008]

Those who commit crimes should not be *punished*. They should simply be isolated from the society.

This way you have the society that is the "good guys", and the criminals that are the "bad guys". Otherwise, you have the bad guys on both sides.

I believe the Nordic countries have got it figured out to a degree.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that people in the States don't respect the law - they fear it. I've heard that if you get pulled over by a cop, if you get out of the car, they would attack you. Is that true? What sort of bullshit is that?

You can't fight violence with violence, or hate with hate. Doing that just legitimises the offender - if the law can kill and punish, so can we, for we didn't choose these laws, and therefore are no worse than our victims, who didn't choose *our* laws either.

[KillSwitch_J]

Well, usually determining what kind of evidence is admitted is done in favor of the defendant. But it can get pretty complicated.

I guess it would depend on the judge you get.

[KillSwitch_J]

Those who commit crimes should not be *punished*. They should simply be isolated from the society.

That's a matter of opinion.

This way you have the society that is the "good guys", and the criminals that are the "bad guys".

and where would you house these extreme criminals? Before you say it. No we can't do the "Escape from New York" scenario.


Otherwise, you have the bad guys on both sides.

It's more of a shades of grey type deal. Although many don't like using death as a punishment for killers. Others see it as a deterent for would be killers.

I believe the Nordic countries have got it figured out to a degree.

I wouldn't know about how nordic countries laws operate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that people in the States don't respect the law - they fear it.

It depends on where you are in the states.



I've heard that if you get pulled over by a cop, if you get out of the car, they would attack you. Is that true? What sort of bullshit is that?

Again, it depends on where you are in the states. It's also depends on the which cop pulls you over. I had a friend growing up, whose brother became a target of a bad cop.

This cop harassed this guys brother so bad, that the chief of police had to transfer the cop in question to another county to get him to stop the harassment. I personally would have fired his ass and brought him up on charges, but my friends family let it go with the transfer, and that cop never bothered them again.


You can't fight violence with violence.

I beg to differ. If someone acts in a violent manner to you, you had better be able to take care of yourself. or they will see you as a target from that day on.

Now don't get me wrong. I not saying just up and blow someone away for the slightest thing. I believe you should try going through the proper channels first(IE. The law, and the courts), then if these things fail to protect you, well after that you do what you have to in order to survive. At least that's MHO.

or hate with hate. Doing that just legitimises the offender - if the law can kill and punish, so can we, for we didn't choose these laws, and therefore are no worse than our victims, who didn't choose *our* laws either.

People who intend to use violence against innocent people don't need anything to legitimize their actions. A lot of them seem to think this world was put here for their own personal plaything, so they feel that they have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without anyone or anything to keep them in check.

These are the kind of people, that have mostly caused the need for death penalties to be even be used at all.

[Satyr]

there are 3 main pro's for death penalty, being:

1) Retribution

Who commits a crime in a society, has caused a certain kind of unbalance that has to be balanced again. This means that the offender must undergo a punishment (a suffering) equal to the suffering he caused (an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth).

2) Prevention

To protect society against crimes such as murder, rape etc., the punishments must be severe enough to scare of potential offenders. Death penalty is an exemplary punishment, as every other punishment known. The amount of suffering caused by the punishment has to be bigger than the potential profit of the crime (why would you buy a bread when you know you can also steal it and only have to pay the bread if you are caught?).

3) Prevent recidivism

A punishment is meant to prevent the offender from commiting the crime again. Of course, death penalty would be the most efficient way, since a dead person won't commit a crime, ever.

However, there are arguments against all of these reasons:

1) Retribution

-When you execute the offender, he's no longer conscious of what he has done and the suffering he has caused and he will not consciously experience his punishment. Thus, there is no punishment.

-The punishment has to be in proportion with the crime commited, but it doesn't have to be the same suffering. We don't demand that a rapist gets raped and that a pyromaniacs house has to be set on fire. Why would you demand it for murderers then?

-Execution of the murderer doesn't bring the victim back to life (however, no punishment can do that).

-Death penalty causes even more suffering, namely with the family and friends of the offender.

2) Prevention:

-The scaring effect wished for, doesn't work with the heaviest of offenders, and it's those who are affected by death penalty. Most of them show so-called 'desperado behaviour': it can't get any worse, they have nothing left to lose, and fear nothing. After all, you can only punish someone by taking something away from them they wish to keep eg. money, freedom, their life...

-Scaring effects are difficult to measure. There are so many factors (level of education, culture, social environment, having a weapon) that will determine whether or not someone will commit a crime. That will make it difficult to decide wether it was the threat of the punishment or the other factors that keeped him/her from commiting the crime/stimulated him/her to commit the crime.

-Utilistic theories (=an action is morally right if it delivers more profits than losses) take into mind that offenders make that kind of profit-loss analysis (what do I risk? What do I gain?) before commiting the crime. However, this is untrue. Most murder(attempts) happen in a burst of emotions, making one incapable of logic/rational thinking. Most offenders don't think about the punishment they risk while commiting the crime.

-Empirical (=from experiments and observations) argument: the prevention-argument basically says that without the death penalty, the crimerate would be higher. This, however, has never been proven. In fact, studies show that in no country where the death penalty is discharged, the crimerate has rised.

-Ethical argument: Even if the death penalty works as a prevention method, it isn't said it's ethically right. (if you get suspended in school every time you deliver your assignment too late, the punishment would without a doubt work preventive. But it's not because it empirically works, that it's ethically justified).

3) Prevent recidivism:

-Death penalty usually isn't asked for small time felonies (theft, vandalism..), but for crimes like murder. The argument is, that death penalty is the most efficient way to prevent repetition of the crime. Studies show, however, that an offender of a crime like murder usually won't commit the same crime ever again. Small time felonies, on the other hand, are repeated by the same offender way more often. So, when we look at it from the viewpoint of 'preventing recidivism', such a radical penalty as death, is least needed for crimes like murder. Recidivism in cases of murder only occur in 0.5% of the times. That 0.5% are usually mentally ill, and in a civilized world we all agree that a mentally ill person shouldn't be punished, but treated by psychiatrists.

-Less radical punishments work just as well to prevent repetition. One cause of this, is that crime is strongly age-related (the statistics say so): someone who has done his time in jail, has gotten older and will thus commit another crime less easily.


Goddamn motherfucker, I hate long posts...

[driveby]

Incorrect.

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050213_mapping.htm

In almost every category, black people commit more crimes.

Because they started out in poverty, but got the money to get wealthy through crime.