The problem with the death penalty

[strongsmartsexy]

Paying millions each year to keep properly convicted felons alive is financially bankrupt.

Do you mean the felons who have been nailed smoking pot? Or the felons caught using AAS, or the felons who robbed a bank, or the felons who killed someone?

 

[Code]

Death penalty peeps.

And aggravated rape, and molestation felons.

Do you mean the felons who have been nailed smoking pot? Or the felons caught using AAS, or the felons who robbed a bank, or the felons who killed someone?

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Death penalty peeps.

And aggravated rape, and molestation felons.

And your belief is the fractional cost of housing those people versus the entire prison population is worth the cost of potentially executing innocent people?

 

[Code]

Well, here's my take. It's not about preventing crime but raw punishment.

There is no greater right to remove from someone than taking away their right to live. There are (and should be) circumstances that dictate the use of this, murder, aggravated rape and child molestation are (IMO) the right circumstance.


Do I think the laws need to be revised to allow for looser sentencing for some crimes? Yes. But that isn't going to happen. Do I think prison's are being used improperly? Yes. Do I think prison should be about punsihment, not rehabilitation? Yes.

But I don't think we should stop executing criminals because the system is flawed. No formal system is perfect, I can live with the results of an imperfect system.

And your belief is the fractional cost of housing those people versus the entire prison population is worth the cost of potentially executing innocent people?

 

[digger]

Do you mean the felons who have been nailed smoking pot? Or the felons caught using AAS, or the felons who robbed a bank, or the felons who killed someone?

No; no; yes, if they keep doing it after they've been properly horsewhipped and/or put to honest work (see my post above); and hell, yes! but see below for how I'd implement it (if you catch them red-handed).

We need a fundamental reform to the entire justice system first. For instance, the question asked elsewhere, "Do you need thirty-round magazines for your gun?" That question is abhorrent to the US Constitution. Just like criminalizing pot, AAS, or whatever, it throws away the presumption of innocence. It is unconstitutional to criminalize the mere possession of anything. Seriously. The only true basis of a crime is criminal behavior. It's not what you have that makes you a felon; it's what you do.

If you can arrest someone because of what they have, then every man should be in jail as a "potential rapist." Possession of ANYTHING should not be prosecutable. Period. It warps and twists the justice system and must be abolished before we can restore it to sanity.

Now that you've emptied the prisons, suddenly the problem becomes a bit more manageable. Certainty of punishment is the key to getting the attention of would-be criminals. If the police are focussing on real (for lack of a better word) crimes, the certainty of punishment goes way up, and the crime rate goes way down.

But I would not stop there. No, the cops don't get to throw the guy up against a wall because his pocket has a gun-shaped bulge -- that's mere possession. If he pulls it out without good reason, I would let society as a whole teach him that he doesn't get to take more than one or two people with him. No hiding places, no "gun-free zones" (by definition, places full of defenseless targets). Let's see what happens with lots and lots of parents and fit young men recently out of the military, all with unlimited concealed carry permits.

No sig because I'm not posting this as an admin, just another EF Plat.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Well, here's my take. It's not about preventing crime but raw punishment.

There is no greater right to remove from someone than taking away their right to live. There are (and should be) circumstances that dictate the use of this, murder, aggravated rape and child molestation are (IMO) the right circumstance.


Do I think the laws need to be revised to allow for looser sentencing for some crimes? Yes. But that isn't going to happen. Do I think prison's are being used improperly? Yes. Do I think prison should be about punsihment, not rehabilitation? Yes.

But I don't think we should stop executing criminals because the system is flawed. No formal system is perfect, I can live with the results of an imperfect system.

The issue with you LIVING with the results of an imperfect system is that you can do so because it doesn't directly effect you. Very noble huh? Now if on the other hand you were willing to give up your life to support this imperfect system then there is something noble about that. Misguided, but noble none the less.

In issues of prosectution, they attempt to obtain the highest level of conviction they can possibly get whether it's warranted or not. Their pay and reputation are based on this. Right and wrong be dammed. And the hand picking of juries of least common denominator intelligence works to the significant detriment of this system and the people being pushed through the system.

I watched a jury deliberation on TV where they were trying to figure out if it was "self-defense" or not for this man who killed another man in a shootout. One of the legal triggers for deciding self-defense was (paraphrased) whether the defendant provoked the other person to use deadly force. Interestingly enough, they stopped at "the defendant provoked", and completely ignored the "to use deadly force" part of the condition. They kept hammering that it couldn't be self-defense because they felt the defendant "provoked" the confrontation. Which he clearly did. They issue they overlooked was that they (prosecution) couldn't prove that he provoked the other man to use deadly force. They then ruled out self-defense. Tsk tsk tsk.

The legal system railroads people through. The notion of "justice" is an afterthought in the pursuit of the system of legality we have. What is "just" about putting someone in jail for using marijuana? What is just about puttig someone in jail for AAS use?

I will agree that there are crimes which should warrant the death penalty. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. However I also believe that no one innocent should be put to death. And that to sacrifice someone elses innocent life to support a known flawed system is not something I can morally stomach.

 

[Tiervexx]

Well, here's my take. It's not about preventing crime but raw punishment.

There is no greater right to remove from someone than taking away their right to live. There are (and should be) circumstances that dictate the use of this, murder, aggravated rape and child molestation are (IMO) the right circumstance.


Do I think the laws need to be revised to allow for looser sentencing for some crimes? Yes. But that isn't going to happen. Do I think prison's are being used improperly? Yes. Do I think prison should be about punsihment, not rehabilitation? Yes.

But I don't think we should stop executing criminals because the system is flawed. No formal system is perfect, I can live with the results of an imperfect system.

This is extremely irrational.

You acknowledge the fact that there is a very real risk to killing innocent people, but you think that is justified for the emotional gratification of vengeance?

If such punishments really did deter crime than it would make some sense, and might be worth the risk as less innocent people might die that way, but it is not the case.

 

[Tiervexx]

What I mean to say is that the goal of a justice system should be to protect innocents, not to satisfy animalistic rage.