Dont want the death penalty? Just cry. (Death Penalty Discussion)

[Baha]

Oh, I wondered how long the old "why do criminals get tv or any recreation at all?" argument would pop up.

People who don't get life sentences will get out eventually. You can a) try and rehabilitate them, offering a decent prison life, maybe some opportunity for work or education inside etc. Or b) offer them four walls and enough bread and water to keep them alive.
After 10-20 years, which dude would you want to release into society?

Option B is for backwater third-world countries or dictatorships, not something you'd expect in a developed country. The same is pretty much true for the death penalty, most countries have abolished it or don't actually practice it anymore.

[Solefald]

I think that the protection of cruel and unusual has gone a little too far. By no means should we crush someone or dismember them as a death penalty. Those are prime examples of what it should be protecting against. Nevertheless, I don't think [cheap] things like CO2 (which is painless (and you're thinking of carbon monoxide if you do think it is)), firing squad, etc.

I know this'll be yanked out of context and beaten to death, but I fail to see why we have to spend so much money killing a person and making it completely painless. Hell, if a bullet doesn't seem humane, CO2 is an extremely humane alternative since one just literally dozes off to sleep. That's cheap and effective.

The standards need to be there, but we take cruel and unusual just a little too far.

The method of execution isn't the reason why capital punishment is so expensive, dumbshit.

Anyway, here's the ABC Nightline report on the Todd Willingham case I linked earlier in the thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFA2IGVOcw8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lazp8cuPi18
I guess videos are disabled in this thread. Link: http://stopexecutions.blogspot.com/2...t-on-todd.html

[Khamsin]

Oh, I wondered how long the old "why do criminals get tv or any recreation at all?" argument would pop up.

People who don't get life sentences will get out eventually. You can a) try and rehabilitate them, offering a decent prison life, maybe some opportunity for work or education inside etc. Or b) offer them four walls and enough bread and water to keep them alive.
After 10-20 years, which dude would you want to release into society?

Option B is for backwater third-world countries or dictatorships, not something you'd expect in a developed country. The same is pretty much true for the death penalty, most countries have abolished it or don't actually practice it anymore.

I'd rather release B into public, because he sure as hell wouldn't want to go through that again. Less enjoyable means more reason to stay away.

Prisoner A might get used to being taken care of, and when he's released back into society 30 years later, realize he has no place in society and commit suicide or another crime to get back in, a'la Shawshank Redemption.

What would be best is understanding traumatic events that cause phobias and psychological aversions so we can make criminals extremely paranoid or afraid of whatever they did to get in jail in the first place. Not like some mad scientist electrotherapy but something that simply instills an OCD-like compulsion to conform and not do anything illegal, with fear of blood or confrontations as a bonus. Whatever causes those traits in normal people. In essence, give them the same experiences that turn kids growing up into nice law-abiding OCD-neat boring nerds (the kind that don't have pent up rage that go postal).

[Baha]

I'd rather release B into public, because he sure as hell wouldn't want to go through that again. Less enjoyable means more reason to stay away.

Prisoner A might get used to being taken care of, and when he's released back into society 30 years later, realize he has no place in society and commit suicide or another crime to get back in, a'la Shawshank Redemption.

Shawshank Redemption is B, not A (admittedly, with some trends towards A as the movie goes on eg. the kid getting his highschool diploma and learning to read). Rehabilitation has more to it than "being taken care of" it also includes education, helping to find job opportunities and stuff like part-time confinement or part-time jobs outside of the prison. Working towards having prisoners leave as functioning people, not working towards breaking them down and "getting even". (note: No, I don't believe everyone can or sometimes even should be rehabilitated.)

What would be best is understanding traumatic events that cause phobias and psychological aversions so we can make criminals extremely paranoid or afraid of whatever they did to get in jail in the first place. Not like some mad scientist electrotherapy but something that simply instills an OCD-like compulsion to conform and not do anything illegal, with fear of blood or confrontations as a bonus.

A Clockwork Orange? Excellent suggestion.

[Khamsin]

A Clockwork Orange? Excellent suggestion.

Only done to prisoners as rehabilitation, and without the randomly violent crazies that are the antithesis of conformity. And no less unusual of a process than what happens naturally to make some people grow up as plain, non-risk-taking, introverted nerds that try to please everybody and are afraid to make enemies and so consequently also make no friends.

[Vuitton]

It has always bothered me that we don't just shoot people in the head. A properly placed bullet is an instantaneous death. Sure, it doesn't have the illusion of "drifting into sleep," but that is more for the pussies viewing than it is for the death row guy's comfort.

This is what China does. They then bill the family of the prisoner for the bullet used to shoot them in the head (or neck) with an assault rifle.

Go China!

Edit:

I feel the U.S. should adopt this execution technique from the Indian Rebellion of 1857:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepoy_Mutiny_of_1857

To the steady beat of drums, the captured rebels were first stripped of their uniforms and then tied to cannons, their bellies pushed hard against the gaping mouths of the big guns. The order to fire was given. With an enormous roar, all the cannons burst into life at once, generating a cloud of black smoke that snaked into the summer sky. When the smoke cleared, there was nothing left of the rebels' bodies except their arms, still tied to the cannons, and their blackened heads, which landed with a soft thud on the baking parade ground. It was a terrible way to die and a terrible sight to witness.

[Olo401]

What it comes down to is that because those who have died cannot come back to tell us what is truly cruel and unusual, it is left to the living to decide.

Unfortunately, that lack of foresight that the living possess leads to things like people being strapped to the mouth of a cannon and blown to pieces.

[Correction]

This article is worth posting here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/op...eron.html?_r=1

Last words of the condemned. Favorites follow:

Go ahead?

My heart goes is going ba bump ba bump ba bump.

Is the mike on?

I don’t have anything to say. I am just sorry about what I did.

I am nervous and it is hard to put my thoughts together. Sometimes you don’t know what to say.

Man, there is a lot of people there.

I don’t think the world will be a better or safer place without me.

Kick the tires and light the fire. I am going home.

Tell everyone I got full on chicken and pork chops.

[Rhinox]

Thinking of creative ways to execute people is fun stuff guys! I mean lets take humanity out of it completely.

Lets throw them in volcanoes!!!! DURDURDUR

[Byrthnoth]

I think that we should turn it into a game. Death Race was a little over-the-top though.

I'm thinking more something like land-mine beach volleyball. Make a volleyball net out of barb wire, randomly distribute land mines on each side, and play with a ball that explodes if it touches the ground. Split all the people on death row into two teams and start the tournament. When one member dies, another member takes his place without stopping the game. Survivors get to appeal their sentences.


Btw: Anyone want to start up the, "Why are pro-life people often pro-death penalty?" argument? (Ex. Texas)

[Shuvo]

I think that the protection of cruel and unusual has gone a little too far. By no means should we crush someone or dismember them as a death penalty. Those are prime examples of what it should be protecting against. Nevertheless, I don't think [cheap] things like CO2 (which is painless (and you're thinking of carbon monoxide if you do think it is)), firing squad, etc.

I know this'll be yanked out of context and beaten to death, but I fail to see why we have to spend so much money killing a person and making it completely painless. Hell, if a bullet doesn't seem humane, CO2 is an extremely humane alternative since one just literally dozes off to sleep. That's cheap and effective.

The standards need to be there, but we take cruel and unusual just a little too far.

Their is nothing out-of-context about it, you're just wrong. The death penalty is not expensive because of the method of execution, its because of the various costs in the actual legal proceedings itself, as you need to make sure that the person in question is guilty.

That being said, innocent people still keep slipping through and get the death penalty. It should therefore be abolished and replaced with a life sentence.

"Better to let ten guilty selves go free than to punish one innocent self."

[Jer]

I think that we should turn it into a game. Death Race was a little over-the-top though.

RUNNING MAN! RUNNING MAN! RUNNING MAN!

[Qalbert]

Their is nothing out-of-context about it, you're just wrong. The death penalty is not expensive because of the method of execution, its because of the various costs in the actual legal proceedings itself, as you need to make sure that the person in question is guilty.

That being said, innocent people still keep slipping through and get the death penalty. It should therefore be abolished and replaced with a life sentence.

"Better to let ten guilty selves go free than to punish one innocent self."

so is that the ratio? as long as its 11:1 or better its fine?

[Shuvo]

so is that the ratio? as long as its 11:1 or better its fine?

>_> It's just a famous quote. Their should not be any false-positives at all when it comes to the death penalty. So it should be replaced with the much cheaper option (life imprisonment). The state saves money -and- innocent men have a chance of getting cleared. Win-win!

[Qalbert]

I haven't done a lot of research but isn't life improsinment a hell of a lot more expensive? plus parole, good behavior, etc. Life sentences, aren't.

[pohibaba]

I haven't done a lot of research but isn't life improsinment a hell of a lot more expensive? plus parole, good behavior, etc. Life sentences, aren't.

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

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 the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 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.

Source.

[damet]

The bottom line is that we have absolutely no right to decide whether or not someone lives or dies. He have no right to decide someone should die. Sure these death row prisoners did some horrible things, but the best we can do is lock them up for life so that they do not harm anyone else. It was their choice to do what they have done, but we still have a choice. We are just humans, and I don't think we are even close to comprehending all aspects of life, not to mention the meaning and purpose of life or death. Therefore, untill we do, we have no right...

[Aurara]

I'm personally for the death penalty only. I mean if they were to kill an entire family, douse the bodies in gasoline(you get the idea). Also people who kill children of any sort of age or murder the kid's parents in front of them. Those people def. deserve to die, since those kinds of crimes are so horrific(dont get me wrong, mass slayings are really fucking horrible)that anyone who lived through them(family members, etc) have to go through every day in their lives knowing that the person who killed their loved one(s) is still alive and living in a prison.

[Qalbert]

Source.

Didn't go to your source yet because frankly im tired as hell and don't feel like reading a bunch, so sorry if its explained there, but is that millions more expensive per year versus a year of regular prison? and if so is X years on death row still that much more expensive then 50 or whatever years in regular maximum security? I mean if its 5 years of death row vs 50 in maximum, is death row still more expensive?

[Khamsin]

Source.

Do they seize and liquidate the criminal's assets to cover part of the cost? If not, they should. Home, car, CD collection, whatever they can auction off.

Although, government auctions are stupid. They should just sell houses and stuff for full price and get more money out of it, even if it means leaving it on the market for a while longer.

Didn't go to your source yet because frankly im tired as hell and don't feel like reading a bunch, so sorry if its explained there, but is that millions more expensive per year versus a year of regular prison? and if so is X years on death row still that much more expensive then 50 or whatever years in regular maximum security? I mean if its 5 years of death row vs 50 in maximum, is death row still more expensive?

The obvious answer is to speed up the time to execution. The inmates are entitled to a speedy trial and execution, not made to wait 10 years.

Just execute on the day of sentencing. Or, if an appeal is made, allow only as many appeals as it takes to get to the Supreme Court, and once the Supreme Court decides, execute on that day (or acquit, if that's the new decision).

Pass a law saying that all inmates must have all their appeals and be executed by 1 year from original sentencing date, or they will get their sentence commuted to life imprisonment. Stall tactics not allowed, the delay has to be governmental in nature.