Death Penalty

[Espeon]

I assume you already know my answer, but anyway...
Murderers don't deserve rehabilitation.

AND I REPEAT BUT WITH SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WORDING:
I want MURDERERS dead, not innocent people. And 0.16% isn't that great of a chance, you know.

Soooo the people doing the killers then become murderers, taking another human life. So therefore they should be killed by this logic too? Then, the killers after that and soforth. I mean, if they've killed someone, they're clearly not innocent in the slightest.

 

[1. Luftballon]

kill everyone! it's the best option!

 

[Michi]

Will you change your mind the day an innocent person is confirmed to have been executed by the state?

No. One person vs. tens or hundreds of thousands isn't worth destroying one of the oldest practices of punishment that still works.

But is getting what you want worth the implications and overall cost of doing so? Seems kind of selfish.

Yes, because it's not just me who wants it; it costs only slightly more in the long run for a prisoner to be sentenced to death, as they would live longer if sentenced to life; it rids the world of a vicious murderer and makes Earth a safer place; and the chance of it ever being an innocent person are insignificant.

 

[PK]

i don't even know where to begin.

Who are you to say they don't deserve rehabilitation? Aren't you the one saying that killing them is a-okay? Isn't that crime they're guilty of? And if there is any chance, any chance at all, of their innocence, it can never be done.

No, it isn't that great a chance, but doing something with any chance at all of killing an innocent person should only be done when there is a very, very, very great benefit to outweigh the risk. For example, most dangerous diseases are quite unlikely to be fatal, but that doesn't mean it's a-okay to infect people with them just for the hell of it.

pffft, totally hivemind

Anyways, Espeon raises a good point- The executioner is guilty of murdering someone. Should they also be killed?

No. One person vs. tens or hundreds of thousands isn't worth destroying one of the oldest practices of punishment that still works.



Yes, because it's not just me who wants it; it costs only slightly more in the long run for a prisoner to be sentenced to death, as they would live longer if sentenced to life; it rids the world of a vicious murderer and makes Earth a safer place; and the chance of it ever being an innocent person are insignificant.

if there is any chance at all they're innocent it is significant

 

[Michi]

The exocutioner is simply hired by the government and public; they do not kill in cold blood, but kill a guilty man or woman as ... compensation, let's say, for the killing of an innocent man or woman.

And it is a faulty, ignorant opinion of mine that they don't deserve rehab. But I'm willing to bet that MANY more people feel this way.

Oh. And there has yet to be a case where an executed person has been discovered as innocent.

 

[PK]

The exocutioner is simply hired by the government and public; they do not kill in cold blood, but kill a guilty man or woman as ... compensation, let's say, for the killing of an innocent man or woman.

And it is a faulty, ignorant opinion of mine that they don't deserve rehab. But I'm willing to bet that MANY more people feel this way.

Oh. And there has yet to be a case where an executed person has been discovered as innocent.

so, by your logic, killing someone is TOTALLY OKAY so long as you're hired to do it? Looking into a career as a hitman?

 

[Aisling]

it costs only slightly more in the long run for a prisoner to be sentenced to death, as they would live longer if sentenced to life;

Slightly more?
Quit ignoring this please:

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.
The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year
this place again)

That is over a one-hundred million dollar difference, broski

it rids the world of a vicious murderer and makes Earth a safer place; and the chance of it ever being an innocent person are insignificant.

Improbable does not mean impossible. By accepting the death penalty is okay because it's unlikely an innocent will be killed still means that you are okay with innocents being killed, which you say you are not.

and I don't feel like quoting your most recent posts but just because it's popular and you want it that way doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Espeon]

The exocutioner is simply hired by the government and public; they do not kill in cold blood, but kill a guilty man or woman as ... compensation, let's say, for the killing of an innocent man or woman.

So, what happens in the event of a killed person turning out to be an innocent?
Certainly the executioner has killed in cold blood then?

 

[Michi]

Slightly more?
That is over a one-hundred million dollar difference, broski

That's if EVERY SINGLE death row inmate were a life sentence prisoner.

 

[opaltiger]

No. One person vs. tens or hundreds of thousands isn't worth destroying one of the oldest practices of punishment that still works.

Okay, what if you received clear evidence that, say, over a period of ten years a hundred innocent people had been executed?

By the way, the way execution methods are set up no one person is responsible for the death of the prisoner. For example, three different people control the machine that delivers lethal injection.

 

[Michi]

What if?
I suppose I might shift a little if that were to actually happen and be from a very reliabe source.
Until then, I say keep the death penalty.

 

[PK]

That's if EVERY SINGLE death row inmate were a life sentence prisoner.

are you saying that, if every single death row inmate was made into a life sentence instead, that it would be $100 million cheaper? because that's the whole point we've been trying to make

 

[opaltiger]

What if?
I suppose I might shift a little if that were to actually happen and be from a very reliabe source. And if it had happened in the US.
Until then, I say keep the death penalty.

What about fifty innocents?

 

[Michi]

are you saying that, if every single death row inmate was made into a life sentence instead, that it would be $100 million cheaper? because that's the whole point we've been trying to make

The point I'm trying to make is that money doesn't freaking matter and this whole entire argument is basically opinion and it cannot be proved moral or immoral. My point of view happens to be, in rather blunt wording, "Screw the money, kill all the murderers."

@opal: Much less likely, about half as likely because it's half the people.

 

[opaltiger]

What about a thousand innocents?

The point I'm trying to make is that money doesn't freaking matter and this whole entire argument is basically opinion and it cannot be proved moral or immoral. My point of view happens to be, in rather blunt wording, "Screw the money, kill all the murderers."

What if those hundred million were diverted to, say, health-care, and subsequently patients who would otherwise have died recovered?

 

[Aisling]

The point I'm trying to make is that money doesn't freaking matter and this whole entire argument is basically opinion and it cannot be proved moral or immoral. My point of view happens to be, in rather blunt wording, "Screw the money, kill all the murderers."

Until you can actually justify your sentiment in a tangible way (and counter the reasons to not have a death penalty!) then you've lost. The argument was whether or not the death penalty should be in practice. We know what your view point is; we're not asking for you to repeat it to us over and over. You can have a viewpoint and not think it should be law. We're asking you for a real reason.

 

[Michi]

are you saying that, if every single death row inmate was made into a life sentence instead, that it would be $100 million cheaper? because that's the whole point we've been trying to make

Also: that would be assuming most don't live long enough. And ife expectancy is increasing right now.

Opal, a thousand would have a rather small chance of moving me at all, admittedly.

 

[PK]

The point I'm trying to make is that money doesn't freaking matter and this whole entire argument is basically opinion and it cannot be proved moral or immoral. My point of view happens to be, in rather blunt wording, "Screw the money, kill all the murderers."

this whole argument is NOT opinion. It is cheaper to not have inmates on death row. And how are you any better then them, supporting the killing of people who may be innocent? And even if they aren't, what gives you the right to decide

 

[opaltiger]

Also: that would be assuming most don't live long enough. And ife expectancy is increasing right now.

Opal, a thousand would have a rather small chance of moving me at all, admittedly.

What if your entire family were wrongly executed?

 

[Michi]

What if your entire family were wrongly executed?

I'd care if my grandparents and mother were wrongly executed, but I'm not close to anyone else. They're almost strangers to me.