Bullshit...keeping scum alive should absolutely be part of the discussion
Why the death penalty should never be abolished.
- Thread starter Howland937
- Start date
The Last Outlaw
Active member
Studies have shown that,in many cases, it is actually more expensive to house someone on death row.
The Last Outlaw
Active member
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/money-social-share-default-5ac795adc0647100374ba7e7.png)
GDP Growth & Recessions
An economy’s growth and recessions can be measured by gross domestic product (GDP). Learn why it’s a key economic indicator for the U.S. and other world economies.
theotherwaldo
Well-known member
I don't know why they don't simply use the nitrogen chamber. No muss, no fuss, no poisons. The condemned simply goes to sleep and doesn't awaken.
It's how many of the animals that have to be put down are handled... .
It's how many of the animals that have to be put down are handled... .
Howland937
Active member
I understand that. I guess I should have added that I don't view cost in any way more or less significant than I do the "cruel and/or unusual punishment" aspect.
"You have been sentenced to death by this court for your actions. Realize, you are not being punished. Your punishment will be rendered by your maker for all eternity. We are simply removing you from the living, as no earthly punishment can atone for your transgressions"
My longtime concern is that a few decades after committing a violent and heinous crime as a 19 y.o. kid, some handwringing liberal judge will "find a way" to release a now prison-hardened, angry, and gym-buffed 49 y.o. convict into the open. All without properly and accurately notifying the lawful people who put the monster into prison in the first place.
wiscoaster
Well-known member
Well, that's on him to account for. Two wrongs don't make a right.
wiscoaster
Well-known member
... as an appropriate and morally and ethically defensible punishment by the state for certain crimes, yes, NOT as a cost-saving measure to the benefit of the public purse.
If found to be appropriate and defensible, then only on the basis of the crime itself, and not on the basis of the character of the defendant. You can't terminate a life simply because the the human involved is determined to be "scum" in the eyes of the state that holds the power of life and death. That is exactly how the Nazis justified the genocide of six million plus human beings.
Howland937
Active member
There are plenty of examples of "scum" who haven't committed the premeditated, merciless murder of children. I don't feel like they deserve to die. The mother referenced in the links above is no different than the Nazis who perpetuated the holocaust and deserves no better treatment than those convicted of crimes against humanity at Nuremberg.
Is the taking of an innocent life, the life she brought into the world and should have died trying to protect, somehow less egregious because it was only one life? Or was the hanging of those found guilty of war crimes unwarranted?
There is nothing any politician can do that could ever break my heart and simultaneously make my blood boil like happens when parents harm or allow someone else to harm their children.
M5-Shogun
Member
GDP Growth & Recessions
An economy’s growth and recessions can be measured by gross domestic product (GDP). Learn why it’s a key economic indicator for the U.S. and other world economies.www.thebalance.com
The main reasons why are due to appeals and other aspects of justice. If we burnt their appeals out early through priority handling of appeals and such, then we could have them pushed in and out of the system in a matter of months or years.
The issue with Life in Prison is that it simply is sometimes too good for some of the criminals we have locked up. Short of torture, which was outlawed in the Bill of Rights, we have execution.
That's my justification, plain and simple. Exhaust them early, extinguish them early.
Phantom 309
Well-known member
That's the truth. It's not like a life sentence means that you rot alone in solitary confinement. Most if not all prisoners get movies, internet access, a commissary, workout equipment and recreation among other things... plus the fact that you can most certainly get drugs in prison and partake in criminal activities. Sure they might lose some privileges for a while if they get caught, but big deal, how much more "locked up" can one get when they are already doing life.
A lifer's biggest fear should be crossing other prisoners or getting in debt to the gangs. A lethal injection would sound pretty nice to someone getting shanked with a toothbrush.
Huh, now that I think about it maybe that toothbrush scenario would be a pretty sweet outcome to this whole deal.
wiscoaster
Well-known member
Well, I'll give you that much, at least. There should be some significant degree of unpleasantness involved. Sitting in a cell watching TV and surfing the internet aren't punishment. How about bringing back road-work gangs? Ala "Cool Hand Luke"? Make them work for their keep. I wouldn't be opposed to that.
Oh, you can't do that. Depending on who you listen to, that's either "slavery" or depriving contractors of work that they'd like to get paid to do.
Tim
.44 Associate
Active member
I am against the death penalty on principle. Aside from the already noted point that our government tends to be incompetent at best and criminally corrupt at worst, I simply don't like allowing our government that much power.
Having said that, it's rare that I have any sympathy for the sort of folks who wind up on death row.
Having said that, it's rare that I have any sympathy for the sort of folks who wind up on death row.
wiscoaster
Well-known member
That's not a problem. Contractors generally can't get enough workers. The penal system can just lease the prisoners to the contractors, who then turn around and bill the highway department three times for their labor costs. It's a neat system. Keeps everybody happy. Except the prisoners and the taxpayers, but who cares about either of them?
The Last Outlaw
Active member
Here in N.C. we have lots of prisoners that work. They clean up highways, cut grass at state facilities, we even have work farms for some prisoners.
Howland937
Active member
A person can't be convicted of a capital offense without a unanimous guilty verdict by a jury of their peers, unless they admit guilt, plead guilty and waive their right to a trial. We're really only depending on the government to administer the actual death.
In this case a woman who tries to abandon her kids, killed one of them while the other 2 watched, and left all 3 there for over an hour. Came back and took the 2 surviving kids and the deceased one back home, before ultimately dumping his body in the river. The only role the government takes in this case is protecting her. Positively sure there are countless civilians who would volunteer to handle it.
.44 Associate
Active member
So there never has been a wrongfully convicted person, and no government employee has ever worked to wrongly convict anyone?
Howland937
Active member
Without a doubt there have been. Lots of them. Way too many. I see those as more a problem with the individual than the entire justice system. Of the 3 branches of government, my distrust for the judicial is the lowest which isn't saying a lot...but, it's what we have.
Should we throw our hands in the air and stop policing and prosecuting altogether?
Should we throw our hands in the air and stop policing and prosecuting altogether?