• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Death Penalty

Should death penalties be in practice?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 3 7.1%

  • No.

    Votes: 29 69.0%

  • Yes, but under certain conditions.

    Votes: 10 23.8%
  • Total voters
    42
The possibly innocent people are dying because jurors found them guilty and a judge sentenced them to death.
Note that they have been listed as possibly innocent.

And I was apparently drawing from another person who said something to the effect of locking them in solitary confinement and feeding them through a hole or whatever.

But rotting in prison for 40+ years while at the same time racking up the same cost as being on death row and not being allowed to be near people without being seperated, thus having minimal interaction, is worse for society and for the person.
 
Me said:
I did not in ANY way say they already have them and are gaining equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...

Geez.

Also, as to little monster's point, that WOULD be cruel and unusual punishment.
 
Little Monster said:
The possibly innocent people are dying because jurors found them guilty and a judge sentenced them to death.
Note that they have been listed as possibly innocent.
Click to expand...

But you can kill murderers instead of imprisoning them, on the grounds they will possibly kill someone else?

But rotting in prison for 40+ years while at the same time racking up the same cost as being on death row and not being allowed to be near people without being seperated, thus having minimal interaction, is worse for society and for the person.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't. That's the point. Death row costs more until about 50 years in, and that's only if they're on death row for 12 years. 13 years and it's almost sixty years before life imprisonment costs the same. It's exponential, you see.
 
I bet it's killing Alruane not to respond to my posts so I'll try and post here as much as possible, especially in response to her. *Evil grin*

You can kill murders instead of imprisoning them on the grounds they KILLED somebody, thanks much.
 
Pwnemon said:
I keep my arguments perfectly straight. The constitution does not say that the federal government can make laws of benevolence, therefore it is a power reserved for the state by amendment ten. It also doesn't say that you can eat, but it is a right retained for the people through amendment nine.

YOUR (lack of Constitutional Knowledge/Purposeful Straw Men) make me think you're incapable of offering a true rebuttal.
Click to expand...

your reliance on the letter of the constitution makes me think you have no capacity for seeing the constitution's deficiencies, and that it is not intended to be the answer to all legal questions, which is a point you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge. there is a reason it has guidelines for its amendment.

the constitution does not say that the federal government can acknowledge the existence of france; therefore it is a power reserved for the state by amendment ten. it also does not state that you can spontaneously combust in the shower, but it is a right retained for the people through amendment nine.

I do not need to offer a "true" rebuttal, because counterexample is disproof.

(and if you found that a straw man, your own legion of scarecrows would like a pay raise.)
 
Alraune said:
But you can kill murderers instead of imprisoning them, on the grounds they will possibly kill someone else?


And on the grounds that murder deserves death. An eye for an eye, though flawed in some instances, works perfectly well here. Or if you're a super-christian since the Bible says that murderers should be put to death. But I'm atheist and I don't regard the Bible as anything but a cooky fourth-century fantasy novel.

But it doesn't. That's the point. Death row costs more until about 50 years in, and that's only if they're on death row for 12 years. 13 years and it's almost sixty years before life imprisonment costs the same. It's exponential, you see.

Not all inmates even serve that much time, and it would take them 12 years to surpass the cost of life imprisonment.
Click to expand...
 
Pwnemon said:
Killing innocents is wrong, yes. But not murderers.
Click to expand...

why. Why is it wrong for these people to kill others, but not wrong for our government to kill them? They committed a terrible crime, yes, but they're still human beings.
 
Pwnemon said:
Killing innocents is wrong, yes. But not murderers.
Click to expand...
I propose that murder is universally bad.
Murdering all the murderers and all the accused murderers means increasing the total number of murders committed.

Murdering a murderer is still murder.
 
PK said:
but killing them is still murder, is the point we're trying to get across here
Click to expand...

No, it's punishment; many religious, moral, and government groups see execution as what's "fair." And so do I.

And just so you know, the people of the US elect the same government that executes people. We could have voted for people who are against it, but so far we obviously haven't.
 
Not all inmates even serve that much time, and it would take them 12 years to surpass the cost of life imprisonment.
Click to expand...

Why are you assuming that all life imprisonment is at least 40 years? It was posted earlier in the thread that the average time inmates spend on death row is 12 - 14 years (check that post for the source). By numbers provided by Pwnemon this means that life imprisonment is as expensive as capital punishment only if the average time served by people sentenced to life in prison exceeds around forty years. And that's not even considering legal fees.

And just so you know, the people of the US elect the same government that executes people. We could have voted for people who are against it, but so far we obviously haven't.
Click to expand...

Yes. Which is precisely why we are having this debate: more people need to realise that capital punishment is a horribly outdated institution.
 
Last edited:
Actually, they DO in the US, unless they die within that time, and many spend evem more time in life imprisonment.
 
I still don't understand how you can allow the killing of someone who is possibly innocent, but at the same time murder someone who would otherwise possibly be released, and then possibly murder again. Or care about someone who you think "deserves to die" to the point that simple solitary confinement is so much worse even though it's so much cheaper.

(also, even though 12 years is only the average of time spent on death row- it is still pretty well established that death row costs more than life sentences

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)
 
...Wow, this is a fast discussion.

Anyway, if one really wants to figure out the costs, one must find out what the average Life Sentence consists of (until prisoner dies). I'd guess it is about forty years, since that's the example that's being used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom