|
Do not discuss gun control, or the right to own/use guns in this thread. Please take any such discussion to this thread or you will be banned. |
On December 26 2012 08:15 Diminisherqc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 08:11 Ettick wrote:On December 26 2012 08:05 Diminisherqc wrote:On December 26 2012 07:49 Ettick wrote:On December 26 2012 07:49 Diminisherqc wrote:On December 26 2012 07:32 Ettick wrote:
I love how even the OP confuses an AR-15 with an assault rifle.
People need to at least do some research into things before they say them. are you serious ...an ar-15 is basicly a m-16 labeled as semi-automatic for civilian sales...if you tell me a m-16 is not an assault rifle you are lieing to your self even if your playing on words from wikipedia **The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963** Is a civilian AR-15 a select fire gun? Last time I checked, it isn't. Also, in case you don't know, an assault rifle is defined as a select fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15, being only semi-auto, is a military style semiautomatic rifle. btw do we know if ti was a civilian ar 15 or not ? ok as i said ,it's been tweaked to not be called an assault rifle,but if your not using it no one can tell its not select fire,admit were nto too far off it,so to go and call people that they dont check theyre fact is pushing it way above the top.Its not like people are calling a .22 an assault rifle lol .22 and .223 are quite different calibers actually... ok but why are you adding a caliber... when i never mentioned it ? i stricly mentionned .22 wich is not an assault rifle at all as i was using it to compare ,to top it off you ignored my answer and the one above me  **edit for bad english **
Wait a sec...
I think I just completely misunderstood your post lol...
Sorry about that
|
Don't feed the errick troll...
i really believed shooting children was the stupidest thing anyone could ever do, but i think setting a trap for voluntary helpers might be even worse.
What has this world come to, and why is it we only ever get these kind of stories from the USA? (or at least regulary)
|
.22 assault rifle hahaha
Reminds me of the scene from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels when a guy gets shot by a .22. "He shot me in the neck!" and his boss replies "No he didn't since you're not dead, you idiot".
|
Ye gods this is horrible. I'm no expert on gun laws, so I don't know what's allowed and what isn't, but if he got this gun legally, shit's going to hit the fan, and rightly so.
|
United States41979 Posts
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
|
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote:
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
I think that has to be decided on a case by case basis. The dude did kind of murder his grandmother with a hammer. I'd be perfectly fine denying him the right to own a firearm long after he served his sentence.
|
edit: Holy shit 2000th post, I'm glad it was made expressing my views on important issues.
My thoughts are with the families affected by this heinous and unforgivable crime.
I'm afraid I can't feign emotional turmoil because I'm not the least surprised nor upset by this sort of news anymore, long ago I read these types of stories without the slightest stirring in my heart. I've come to acknowledge this sort of thing happens in the world we live in and prefer to focus on what can be done to alleviate the situation as this type of occurrence is clearly unnacceptable.
That said, my condolences. This atrocity should not be forgotten and it is indeed a very sad day in the lives of those concerned and to a lesser extent, all of us.
On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote:
I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison. It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure. No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime. Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life. What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined. The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
On December 26 2012 02:00 XenOmega wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote:
I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison. It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure. No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime. Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life. What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined. The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution. Yea, you can't just put put one bullet into the guy's brain that easily. Unlike criminals, we, as a society, see ourselves on the high moral ground, so we do not act on emotions or on hatred or on desire of vengeance ; but we seek justice (Whatever that means!) I don't know for the US, but in Canada, even when one is guilty of a crime, if found to be "mad" or psychologically troubled, that person will not be guilty in a criminal way. For the sake of discussion, if we had the death penalty, the persons who are not criminally guilty probably wouldn't be executed And finally, the reason why it takes so long to send someone to their death is because you want to be 100% sure that there isn't a mistake. A mistake = 1 innocent life taken away. I think there have been many cases, or suspicious cases in your history.
It's a complete fallacy to make these kind of arguments because these people are going to be imprisoned for huge amounts of time anyway. You can't just take the average cost of keeping somebody on death row for 15 years and executing them and going "omg that's so expensive" because the alternative is just keeping them in jail for 30 years or even worse turning them loose after 15 years so they can go and commit more crimes and incur more costs, financial and otherwise.
On the side of making sure, you're happy to keep people imprisoned indefinitely because you're not 100% sure they're guilty but you're not happy with executing them?
Very often these people have admitted to their crimes or they have been proven 100% guilty and a degree of uncertainty of their guilt has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time it takes to execute them, so again this is a very poor argument against executing more violent offenders.
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote:
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
I don't believe he ever should have been let out of jail in the first place, so I'm not really inclined to answer that question on these terms. If it's something like a motorist who doesn't pay parking fines and ultimately loses his license then maybe there should be a time in the future when he should be allowed to reapply... or maybe there isn't?
You know you made that many direct violations of the law and were penalised repeatedly by ever escalating measures until finally your right to own or drive a car was completely removed... at that point you know what? You've fucked up repeatedly beyond any mitigating circumstances and I don't think you have a right to call yourself a "law abiding citizen" again nor be granted any revoked privileges, ever. You're a proven repeat offender and that should mean either attempted rehabilitation with permenantly revoked privileges or in the case of more serious offences such as those described in the OP, execution.
You can't just commit a shit ton of crimes and cause a shit ton of pain, hurt and financial cost to individuals and society then serve your time and declare yourself a law abiding citizen and expect the same treatment as somebody who's never been charged with a single offence. That's bullshit IMO. To expand upon this, would you be happy with a child molester who has been "clean" for 30 years becoming a primary school teacher? I think at some point you've got to acknowledge you've hit the point of no return and you either accept diminished rights in a society that you frankly don't deserve to live in or you submit yourself to be put down.
How long after you beat your grandmother to death with a hammer should you be allowed to legally acquire a firearm is a really dumb question as far as I'm concerned (I'm not saying that's specifically what you were asking, you were perhaps addressing the larger issue which I've tried to do in my response also). The answer is never and it's also a moot point because you should be dead anyway.
|
This is pretty disgusting. Killing firefighters... Probably one of the noblest professions in my book, so innocent and the guy kills them for no reason?
|
|
|
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote:
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
Well America denies them (convicted criminals) a right to vote, so...
|
|
|
On December 26 2012 09:41 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote:
I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison. It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure. No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime. Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life. What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined. The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution. Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 02:00 XenOmega wrote:On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote:
I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison. It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure. No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime. Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life. What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined. The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution. Yea, you can't just put put one bullet into the guy's brain that easily. Unlike criminals, we, as a society, see ourselves on the high moral ground, so we do not act on emotions or on hatred or on desire of vengeance ; but we seek justice (Whatever that means!) I don't know for the US, but in Canada, even when one is guilty of a crime, if found to be "mad" or psychologically troubled, that person will not be guilty in a criminal way. For the sake of discussion, if we had the death penalty, the persons who are not criminally guilty probably wouldn't be executed And finally, the reason why it takes so long to send someone to their death is because you want to be 100% sure that there isn't a mistake. A mistake = 1 innocent life taken away. I think there have been many cases, or suspicious cases in your history. It's a complete fallacy to make these kind of arguments because these people are going to be imprisoned for huge amounts of time anyway. You can't just take the average cost of keeping somebody on death row for 15 years and executing them and going "omg that's so expensive" because the alternative is just keeping them in jail for 30 years or even worse turning them loose after 15 years so they can go and commit more crimes and incur more costs, financial and otherwise. On the side of making sure, you're happy to keep people imprisoned indefinitely because you're not 100% sure they're guilty but you're not happy with executing them? Very often these people have admitted to their crimes or they have been proven 100% guilty and a degree of uncertainty of their guilt has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time it takes to execute them, so again this is a very poor argument against executing more violent offenders.
To your first point, I think you misunderstood something.
Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.
After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.
In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
To your second point, yes I prefer a lifetime of incarceration because if a conviction is proven false, a lifetime prisoner can be released, whereas a corpse cannot be brought back to life.
To your third point, even those who have admitted to their crimes and are 100% undoubtedly guilty may have mitigating circumstances that could change a sentencing decision.
|
Okay guys. WBC says they're going to picket the funeral. WTF. I know this throws this off topic, but this has to be thrown out here. This disgusts me utterly.
@WBCpauletta: WBC will picket funerals of Lt. Michael Chiapperini &Tomasz Kaczowka #GodSentTheShooter #StrengthComesFrmGod Not man Ps 92: 7-9 Prov 11: 7
I cannot believe that anyone could do something like this. But then again, the original act proved me wrong there, too.
Source: Twitter
|
On December 26 2012 13:40 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 09:41 Reason wrote:On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote:
I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison. It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure. No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime. Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life. What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined. The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution. On December 26 2012 02:00 XenOmega wrote:On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote:
I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison. It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure. No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime. Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life. What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined. The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution. Yea, you can't just put put one bullet into the guy's brain that easily. Unlike criminals, we, as a society, see ourselves on the high moral ground, so we do not act on emotions or on hatred or on desire of vengeance ; but we seek justice (Whatever that means!) I don't know for the US, but in Canada, even when one is guilty of a crime, if found to be "mad" or psychologically troubled, that person will not be guilty in a criminal way. For the sake of discussion, if we had the death penalty, the persons who are not criminally guilty probably wouldn't be executed And finally, the reason why it takes so long to send someone to their death is because you want to be 100% sure that there isn't a mistake. A mistake = 1 innocent life taken away. I think there have been many cases, or suspicious cases in your history. It's a complete fallacy to make these kind of arguments because these people are going to be imprisoned for huge amounts of time anyway. You can't just take the average cost of keeping somebody on death row for 15 years and executing them and going "omg that's so expensive" because the alternative is just keeping them in jail for 30 years or even worse turning them loose after 15 years so they can go and commit more crimes and incur more costs, financial and otherwise. On the side of making sure, you're happy to keep people imprisoned indefinitely because you're not 100% sure they're guilty but you're not happy with executing them? Very often these people have admitted to their crimes or they have been proven 100% guilty and a degree of uncertainty of their guilt has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time it takes to execute them, so again this is a very poor argument against executing more violent offenders. To your first point, I think you misunderstood something. Show nested quote +
Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.
After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.
In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
To your second point, yes I prefer a lifetime of incarceration because if a conviction is proven false, a lifetime prisoner can be released, whereas a corpse cannot be brought back to life.
To your third point, even those who have admitted to their crimes and are 100% undoubtedly guilty may have mitigating circumstances that could change a sentencing decision.
Well then assess those mitigating circumstances and pass your judgement then, it doesn't take 15 years to make an informed decision.
So I think you've misunderstood something. This extra expense is not necessary. I'm well aware the current system is flawed, that's why I'm proposing change.
Also, part of the reason the extra costs amount to such a high amount is the stupidity of keeping these people on death row for a long time. They should just be treated like any other inmates and the moment a death sentence is passed you are executed. This stupid inbetween oh let's make extra super careful that we're right about this is completely idiotic. You shouldn't be sentencing somebody to death and putting them onto death row until you're absolutely certain of this judgement, and if you are absolutely certain of this judgement then delay is just causing further expense to the taxpayer and risking more lives.
Convictions made on solid evidence can never be proven false, if convictions are made where an inmate is sentenced to life in prison or death when they are actually innocent of the crime they're accused of then that's just shoddy work on behalf of the justice system and in no way should factor into their methodology.
Oh crap sometimes we make mistakes so what we're going to do is completely change the way we process criminals, that's akin to what Kwark mentioned about preemptive action.
You don't arrest innocent people because a certain percentage of them will become criminals in the future, and on that same basis you shouldn't be afraid to judge and deal with murderers appropriately because an absolutely miniscule percentage will actually be innocent.
That's a terrible approach and in the end is probably costing a good deal more lives than it saves, but because people get so caught up in the loss of life of one innocent man they forget that because of this type of attitude there's maniacs roaming the streets shooting up firemen.
The more time passes the less and less innocent people are going to be sentenced to death, I'm pretty sure that right now almost 2013 if someone is sentenced to death the odds of him being innocent will be similar to those of winning the lottery. There's very few mitigating circumstances that are relevant in all honesty..either this person murdered your wife or sexually abused you as a child or something similar like that or you were trying to steal their watch or just didn't like the way they looked at you. All this deliberation is mostly a complete waste of time...
Humans are far too ethical and far too unpractical about this sort of thing IMO and it's to our detriment and costing more innocent lives than it saves and if that's the price we pay for being "ethical" about this sort of thing then I say the price is too high.
|
On December 27 2012 03:04 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 13:40 Trumpet wrote:On December 26 2012 09:41 Reason wrote:On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote:
I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison. It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure. No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime. Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life. What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined. The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution. On December 26 2012 02:00 XenOmega wrote:On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure. No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime. Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life. What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined. The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution. Yea, you can't just put put one bullet into the guy's brain that easily. Unlike criminals, we, as a society, see ourselves on the high moral ground, so we do not act on emotions or on hatred or on desire of vengeance ; but we seek justice (Whatever that means!) I don't know for the US, but in Canada, even when one is guilty of a crime, if found to be "mad" or psychologically troubled, that person will not be guilty in a criminal way. For the sake of discussion, if we had the death penalty, the persons who are not criminally guilty probably wouldn't be executed And finally, the reason why it takes so long to send someone to their death is because you want to be 100% sure that there isn't a mistake. A mistake = 1 innocent life taken away. I think there have been many cases, or suspicious cases in your history. It's a complete fallacy to make these kind of arguments because these people are going to be imprisoned for huge amounts of time anyway. You can't just take the average cost of keeping somebody on death row for 15 years and executing them and going "omg that's so expensive" because the alternative is just keeping them in jail for 30 years or even worse turning them loose after 15 years so they can go and commit more crimes and incur more costs, financial and otherwise. On the side of making sure, you're happy to keep people imprisoned indefinitely because you're not 100% sure they're guilty but you're not happy with executing them? Very often these people have admitted to their crimes or they have been proven 100% guilty and a degree of uncertainty of their guilt has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time it takes to execute them, so again this is a very poor argument against executing more violent offenders. To your first point, I think you misunderstood something.
Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.
After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.
In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
To your second point, yes I prefer a lifetime of incarceration because if a conviction is proven false, a lifetime prisoner can be released, whereas a corpse cannot be brought back to life.
To your third point, even those who have admitted to their crimes and are 100% undoubtedly guilty may have mitigating circumstances that could change a sentencing decision. Well then assess those mitigating circumstances and pass your judgement then, it doesn't take 15 years to make an informed decision. So I think you've misunderstood something. This extra expense is not necessary. I'm well aware the current system is flawed, that's why I'm proposing change. Also, part of the reason the extra costs amount to such a high amount is the stupidity of keeping these people on death row for a long time. They should just be treated like any other inmates and the moment a death sentence is passed you are executed. This stupid inbetween oh let's make extra super careful that we're right about this is completely idiotic. You shouldn't be sentencing somebody to death and putting them onto death row until you're absolutely certain of this judgement, and if you are absolutely certain of this judgement then delay is just causing further expense to the taxpayer and risking more lives. Convictions made on solid evidence can never be proven false, if convictions are made where an inmate is sentenced to life in prison or death when they are actually innocent of the crime they're accused of then that's just shoddy work on behalf of the justice system and in no way should factor into their methodology. Oh crap sometimes we make mistakes so what we're going to do is completely change the way we process criminals, that's akin to what Kwark mentioned about preemptive action. You don't arrest innocent people because a certain percentage of them will become criminals in the future, and on that same basis you shouldn't be afraid to judge and deal with murderers appropriately because an absolutely miniscule percentage will actually be innocent. That's a terrible approach and in the end is probably costing a good deal more lives than it saves, but because people get so caught up in the loss of life of one innocent man they forget that because of this type of attitude there's maniacs roaming the streets shooting up firemen. The more time passes the less and less innocent people are going to be sentenced to death, I'm pretty sure that right now almost 2013 if someone is sentenced to death the odds of him being innocent will be similar to those of winning the lottery. There's very few mitigating circumstances that are relevant in all honesty..either this person murdered your wife or sexually abused you as a child or something similar like that or you were trying to steal their watch or just didn't like the way they looked at you. All this deliberation is mostly a complete waste of time... Humans are far too ethical and far too unpractical about this sort of thing IMO and it's to our detriment and costing more innocent lives than it saves and if that's the price we pay for being "ethical" about this sort of thing then I say the price is too high.
Is any of this based upon evidence? In the UK innocent people are jailed every day, there are literally hundreds of miscarriages of justice each year The justice system is far from perfect. You are saying that the courts should sentence innocent people to death each year.
Also, you cannot sentence someone to jail and then later increase the sentence for that same crime.
Here are 45 people who you think the courts should murder:
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2012/8370.html
|
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote:
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons
|
On December 27 2012 03:04 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 13:40 Trumpet wrote:On December 26 2012 09:41 Reason wrote:On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote:
I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison. It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure. No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime. Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life. What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined. The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution. On December 26 2012 02:00 XenOmega wrote:On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure. No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime. Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life. What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined. The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution. Yea, you can't just put put one bullet into the guy's brain that easily. Unlike criminals, we, as a society, see ourselves on the high moral ground, so we do not act on emotions or on hatred or on desire of vengeance ; but we seek justice (Whatever that means!) I don't know for the US, but in Canada, even when one is guilty of a crime, if found to be "mad" or psychologically troubled, that person will not be guilty in a criminal way. For the sake of discussion, if we had the death penalty, the persons who are not criminally guilty probably wouldn't be executed And finally, the reason why it takes so long to send someone to their death is because you want to be 100% sure that there isn't a mistake. A mistake = 1 innocent life taken away. I think there have been many cases, or suspicious cases in your history. It's a complete fallacy to make these kind of arguments because these people are going to be imprisoned for huge amounts of time anyway. You can't just take the average cost of keeping somebody on death row for 15 years and executing them and going "omg that's so expensive" because the alternative is just keeping them in jail for 30 years or even worse turning them loose after 15 years so they can go and commit more crimes and incur more costs, financial and otherwise. On the side of making sure, you're happy to keep people imprisoned indefinitely because you're not 100% sure they're guilty but you're not happy with executing them? Very often these people have admitted to their crimes or they have been proven 100% guilty and a degree of uncertainty of their guilt has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time it takes to execute them, so again this is a very poor argument against executing more violent offenders. To your first point, I think you misunderstood something.
Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.
After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.
In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
To your second point, yes I prefer a lifetime of incarceration because if a conviction is proven false, a lifetime prisoner can be released, whereas a corpse cannot be brought back to life.
To your third point, even those who have admitted to their crimes and are 100% undoubtedly guilty may have mitigating circumstances that could change a sentencing decision. Well then assess those mitigating circumstances and pass your judgement then, it doesn't take 15 years to make an informed decision. So I think you've misunderstood something. This extra expense is not necessary. I'm well aware the current system is flawed, that's why I'm proposing change. Also, part of the reason the extra costs amount to such a high amount is the stupidity of keeping these people on death row for a long time. They should just be treated like any other inmates and the moment a death sentence is passed you are executed. This stupid inbetween oh let's make extra super careful that we're right about this is completely idiotic. You shouldn't be sentencing somebody to death and putting them onto death row until you're absolutely certain of this judgement, and if you are absolutely certain of this judgement then delay is just causing further expense to the taxpayer and risking more lives. Convictions made on solid evidence can never be proven false, if convictions are made where an inmate is sentenced to life in prison or death when they are actually innocent of the crime they're accused of then that's just shoddy work on behalf of the justice system and in no way should factor into their methodology. Oh crap sometimes we make mistakes so what we're going to do is completely change the way we process criminals, that's akin to what Kwark mentioned about preemptive action. You don't arrest innocent people because a certain percentage of them will become criminals in the future, and on that same basis you shouldn't be afraid to judge and deal with murderers appropriately because an absolutely miniscule percentage will actually be innocent. That's a terrible approach and in the end is probably costing a good deal more lives than it saves, but because people get so caught up in the loss of life of one innocent man they forget that because of this type of attitude there's maniacs roaming the streets shooting up firemen. The more time passes the less and less innocent people are going to be sentenced to death, I'm pretty sure that right now almost 2013 if someone is sentenced to death the odds of him being innocent will be similar to those of winning the lottery. There's very few mitigating circumstances that are relevant in all honesty..either this person murdered your wife or sexually abused you as a child or something similar like that or you were trying to steal their watch or just didn't like the way they looked at you. All this deliberation is mostly a complete waste of time... Humans are far too ethical and far too unpractical about this sort of thing IMO and it's to our detriment and costing more innocent lives than it saves and if that's the price we pay for being "ethical" about this sort of thing then I say the price is too high.
I was merely pointing out why putting people to death is significantly more costly than jailing them for life. You're arguing that it shouldn't be that way, which is a different debate entirely.
It's also worth noting my perspective is strictly in reference to the US system. I have no idea how similar matters are handled in the UK.
|
hzflank, quoted from your own link.
The crimes that these men and women are convicted of are appalling but in every single case there are questions, conflicts and problems in the evidence that led to their conviction.
Do I need to say any more?
I'm not implying we should be handing out death sentences based on shaky evidence, I'm saying where death sentences are undeniably due they should be carried out immediately and cheaply and the line should be drawn clearer. You don't house someone in solitary confinement because you're half sure that he's too dangerous to be with other inmates but also half not sure that he deserves to be executed so you're just going to waste hundreds and thousands of £$£$ keeping him there until you make your mind up. It's a complete joke.
What you have drawn my attention to is convictions that are not rock solid and I've already made it clear I'm not talking about that type of case.
I'm very well aware the justice system isn't perfect, that's why it needs changing. This is just one area.
trumpet, Last time I checked the UK doesn't employ the death penalty and that's a complete shambles in my opinion, I'm not talking from a UK or a US perspective I'm just saying what I think should be done everywhere.
I'm saying there's a problem with the current system and I'm proposing changes. One of the changes is executing more maniacs, and you are trying to use financial reasons to argue against that. I'm saying these financial reasons are also in need of changing and can be done so easily and have proposed changes there too.
I don't think "it's too expensive" is a valid argument because it shouldn't be costing that much money in the first place.
If I was saying I think we should just build a bridge across the Atlantic Ocean you can tell me it's too expensive or not economically viable or whatever, because that's based upon cold hard facts and physical reality. There's no reason for such a bridge, the materials required and labour costs would outweigh any benefits etc etc No amount of philisophical debate or policy alteration could change that. This is something completely different and it's "too expensive" is just a temporary reality concerning the flawed system that needs changing in the first place, not some unalterable physical property that is constant and cannot be changed.
|
The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets.
|
On December 27 2012 04:19 hzflank wrote:
The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets.
Best be making sure the evidence is solid before passing the sentence of death then? The amount of criminals released back into society who shouldn't be is appalling. You look at the figures for inmates who re-offend and it's obvious these people should not be free in open society, but they are. They are freed time and time again and they re-offend time and time again.
This needs to be changed, and one particular aspect that I've drawn attention to in the context of this particular story is that maniacs who hammer their grandmother to death for no reason need to be executed immediately. You can quote me all the shaky evidence stories you like that's absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
If people are being sentenced to death on shaky evidence and then later it's being found out they shouldn't have been well then that's just one more problem in the justice system that needs solving and doesn't concern what I've said at all.
I'm talking specifically about cases where there is zero doubt, and there's a lot of them.
The current expense of uncertainty is not acceptable and needs to be changed, as do the current levels of leniency shown to repeat offenders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
