Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

BRITLAND

Death Penalty

Recommended Posts

OchyGTA
what does killing someone achieve anyway? the only kind of killing that should be legal is euthansia, why do sick, twisted serial killers need to be killed exactly? are we not better than them?

Very true, we would in turn become the murderers. But look at it this way, if there was a death penalty, wouldn't that be a great incentive for murderers not to murder?

No because as already stated before me, people aren't exactly thinking Of the consequences when they commit a murder. What's more, statistics show that the death penalty has no effect on the number of murders in states which hold the death penalty. I cba to find them, pretty sure Sivi posted them somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
But look at it this way, if there was a death penalty, wouldn't that be a great incentive for murderers not to murder?

Except that the exact opposite is true in reality. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the threat of the death penalty has any function as a deterrent. Case in point- look at the nations in the world with the lowest murder rate per capita. Monaco, Iceland, Austria, Slovenia, Norway, Spain, Qatar, Italy, Sweden, et cetera. All these nations have incredibly low rates of violent crime (particularly murder) and those that enforce the death penalty (only Qatar) do so only for treason, rather than for murder or other violent crime. Statistically, you are less likely to be murdered in a nation without the death penalty for murder than you are in one which has the death penalty. Ergo, its quite possible to argue that life (or other extended periods of) imprisonment appears to be a better deterrent for murders than the death penalty. Of course, there are other influencing factors, but facts are facts- your less likely to be murdered in a country without the death penalty than you are in one with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

But look at it this way, if there was a death penalty, wouldn't that be a great incentive for murderers not to murder?

 

I think you're a troll, but anyway - look at Texas. Highest amount of criminals executed and highest amount of violent crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel
[...]But look at it this way, if there was a death penalty, wouldn't that be a great incentive for murderers not to murder?

Not in the Least.

People who commit premeditated murder have the idea that 'they' won't get caught, and, the others are in the 'heat of the moment'.

 

Penalties for DUI (Driving under the influence) don't work, why expect a murderer to have a different mind set.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

Why isn't the death penalty a deterrent? I know it's not and it's never stopped crime before, but - purely based on logic - shouldn't it have some effect? If you make it known that your actions can get you killed by the state, surely that would get through to people and they would put their own life ahead of their criminal interests.

Logically, it should work. I just don't understand why it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chunkyman

Logically, it should work. I just don't understand why it doesn't.

It's because the people who commit heinous crimes (like murder) usually don't think about the consequences that their actions will have, so the type of punishment they will receive is irrelevant to them. If they were using logic, they probably wouldn't be committing their crimes in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

 

Why isn't the death penalty a deterrent? I know it's not and it's never stopped crime before, but - purely based on logic - shouldn't it have some effect?

Actually you're right.

It does work.

That's why there are so few killings. If each one of us were to kill the person most annoying or standing in our way to fame the world might be a better place.

BUT, since the majority do think about it we don't do it.

One thing for sure when the Death penalty is used, there will be no repeats.

 

Reference my previous post.

Edited by lil weasel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alastair Smyth

The problem with death penalty is not only that it is technically and morally against the law of not murdering/killing, but also the debate around who deserves it or not.

 

That starts out with people saying things like "death penalty for pedophiles" (besides nobody deserving to die for being a pedophile; in my opinion only, if, for practicing pedophilia), but no word about whether or not raping adults and animals is any less worse than raping a child? I know it isn't. If you want death for pedophile rapists, you must demand death for any kind of rapist. Then there's the thing that there are people who want the death sentence for, example, homosexuals. Unfortunately, that's not just a few people and not just in a few countries. Imagine Rick Santorum becoming the political leader in your country, would you want the death sentence then? I highly doubt it. So, who decides who deserves being assassinated by the government? Two-faced politicians, society or do coppers have something to say for once in their liftetime?

 

What I am getting at is that in many parts of the US they would want to kill pedophiles, lock other rapists away, along with homosexuals. Oh, given the rapist was non-Aryan and raped Aryans, of course. And the homosexuals only get locked away when they aren't catholic, otherwise, things are cool. In Saudi Arabia, they want to stone homosexuals to death and let men rape anything and anyone (you will understand this if you read the Qoran and listen to what most Muslims have to say about rape. No 4 male witnesses who testify in court, no rape, plus a possible stoning for the victim).

 

Do you see where I'm getting? Even if one could find rather intellect justification for death penalty, I guarantee you we'd bemaking things much worse by giving people the idea. To make a long story short, not only do I have a problem with the double moral of the law, I also think it would be exclusively used against those who do not deserve it the slightest. I am against death penalty in any form.

Edited by Alastair Smyth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

The Christian bible does say that (Ecclesiastes 3:3)“there is a time to kill". (Exodus 22:18) "Suffer not a Witch to live!", et cetera. So GOD approves killing. God will judge the person at God's pleasure.

The Koran also has killing requirements. (Sura 2:98, Sura 2:193 & 8:39) et cetera.

The Morality of killing for 'Justice' is purely Tribal.

I have heard that the Code of Hammurabi has “Thou shalt not kill wantonly amongst thine own tribe.” or some such similar requirement.

 

Execution has been a popular method of dealing with criminals for centuries.

It has only been in disrepute for the last few decades, mainly because of the lack of across the races implements. Then the idea of ‘Cruel AND Unusual” has been brought up. A reader of law should understand that that word AND is very important. To be unconstitutional BOTH would have to apply. Being cruel would be acceptable (Electric Chair or Hanging), being unusual would be acceptable (Firing Squad, Guillotine, Beheading by axe) . But if you put both together then you have a problem. (Drawn and Quartered).

I contend that the Capital Punishment prevents crimes, by predatory criminals (repeat-offenders) and eliminates Tax Expensive warm storage of other Socially Defective criminals. Remember most prisoners (pre Homeland Security) were found Guilty by a Jury.

 

Of course this applies to the U.S. not the U.K.

Everybody knows the U.K. doesn't have the violent criminals like the U.S. so a Death Penalty wouldn't really make much difference.

But You Should Have One anyway for those occassions.

Edited by lil weasel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

I contend that the Capital Punishment prevents crimes, by predatory criminals (repeat-offenders) and eliminates Tax Expensive warm storage of other Socially Defective criminals.

In order to present such a view, you must substantiate it. How do you respond to 1) my earlier statistical demonstration that violent crime offending rates (and for that matter re-offending rates) are higher in Westernised countries with the death penalty than in those without it; and 2) the statistics presented by others that show the average death row inmate costs far more than life imprisonment for a convicted felon. For instance, in Maryland five death row felons cost an estimated $186m over their case lifetimes, from investigation to death- with the average cost to the taxpayer of a death sentence in Maryland between 1978 and 1999 being $3m- more than double the overall cost of $1.1m for life imprisonment for a single felon in the same time-frame (Urban Institute, 2008).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VercettiCrimeFamily

My personnal prefrence is that being in prision is more justice than being executed thats the easiest way out if you think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

I would say that statistics can be manipulated. Unreported crime is still a crime but some districts don’t want to ruin their tourist trade. Murders become suicides or accidents.

The cost of keeping a Death Row convict should be the same or less than a general population convict. Where does the excess that expense come from? Break it down. When the convict is executed all expense except body disposal ends.

The statistics are bent because the Lawyers get to still draw excessive pay for years for what should have ended within weeks of the conviction.

 

Keeping people in jail should be justified by the money it takes to do it. Either the laws need to be changed or execute the repeat criminals. There needs to be an end.

 

E: I just thought of a way we can have it 'both' ways, of sorts. All the people who are against the Death Penalty should register their belief. Then the Cost of keeping those 'Lifer' prisoners will be assessed to them and only them. Persons who register for Death won't have to pay any extra for the warm storage.

Edited by lil weasel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

Persons who register for Death won't have to pay any extra for the warm storage.

 

But that's incorrect as they'd be paying more, not those who registered for "life" under your system. The facts are not on your side; it costs more for a death row inmate... it's that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel
[...] it costs more for a death row inmate... it's that simple.

Yeah, Yeah, blah blah, Explain WHY?

It's fine for you all to keep blabbering "it Costs More". “Statistics say, blah blah”. What are these statistics, what are the expenses? Why are the expenses?

But you don't have anything to say about WHY it costs more. You take it as gospel “because there have been studies” and leave it at that.

I’m trying to point out that executing the criminal within a reasonable period saves money. You’re going on about we should keep paying Lawyers forever to keep bringing up ‘new’ reviews until the convicted prisoner is either freed or spends life at our expense.

It stands to reason and logic that when a convict IS executed all expenses END.

I make a tongue in cheek comment that the people who don’t want the Death penalty should be the ones who actually pay for keeping people alive on death penalty convictions and it doesn’t phase you. I don’t want to keep paying for warm storage of people who should be dead. If you’re continuing to need to keep them alive I shouldn’t pay for it and you should, that’s simple enough, but it went over your head…

 

The Convict has been found guilty, the Convict has been given time to find fault with his/her trial. The Convict has been found guilty by a jury of his/her Peers. The Execution should be timely.

 

We need to have a Death Penalty to remove the worst predatory criminals from society with minimal expense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

We need to have a Death Penalty to remove the worst predatory criminals from society with minimal expense.

They "why" of it is largely irrelevant unless you are an economist. Part of it is due to the appeals process as it currently stands- admission of guilt is enough in some cases to have you sentence commuted to life imprisonment, but you can't really appeal if you've confessed to something. I'm sure that makes a statistical impact. Appeals for death row inmates are more frequent, longer and more drawn out than they are for non-death-row inmates purely because of the greater need to haste in launching an appeal, and the desire amongst many to drag the process out for as long as is humanly possible. But the facts are there- all studies indicate that death row inmates cost more than an equivalent life-without-parole inmate.

 

 

I would say that statistics can be manipulated. Unreported crime is still a crime but some districts don’t want to ruin their tourist trade. Murders become suicides or accidents.

If the entirety of your argument rests on the presumption that democratic European states bury their real crime statistics to improve tourism, I don't think this debate is going to go well for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

My arguement is that a month, (a year tops) is all that is needed for appeals.

If the Lawyers can't show a fault in the trial by then Execute the convict.

 

I'm saying the Need for a Death Penalty is to remove Predatory Convicted Criminals.

 

This never ending appeals process is a Cancer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

The statistics have been posted numerous times, weasel. It's an indisputable fact. Unless we did what you suggest and not allow people to appeal the death penalty, it does cost more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

I didn't say anything about Not allowing appeals.

I said there must be a reasonable limit.

Why give Lawyers a carte blanche to keep dipping into the bank?

 

You're instance that it 'costs more' is based on faulty thinking that there can never be an end to Appeals. How long should it take to go through the records of the trial to find fault(s)?

 

He says, talking to the wall.

Edited by lil weasel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
I said there must be a reasonable limit.

Its uncommon, but not unheard of, for convictions to be overturned ten, twenty or even fifty years after they are handed down. A month for appeals completely ignores the fact that advances in medical science and in forensics can make an old conviction untenable quite easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

All the more reason to execute them in a year or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BRITLAND

for all those saying that it doesnt help crime rates well here in UK since it was abolished in 1965 murder rates have tripled which means it had some impact in crime rates bringing it back would tone it down & for all those saying states that have it have higher crime rates well Texas, California, Florida etc have huge populations than other states which automaticly makes then have higher crime rates unlike other states which dont have it like Vermont, West Virgina etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs
for all those saying that it doesnt help crime rates well here in UK since it was abolished in 1965 murder rates have tripled which means it had some impact in crime rates bringing it back would tone it down & for all those saying states that have it have higher crime rates well Texas, California, Florida etc have huge populations than other states which automaticly makes then have higher crime rates unlike other states which dont have it like Vermont, West Virgina etc

Please refer to Texas. Highest rate of executed criminals and highest rate of homicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BRITLAND
for all those saying that it doesnt help crime rates well here in UK since it was abolished in 1965 murder rates have tripled which means it had some impact in crime rates bringing it back would tone it down & for all those saying states that have it have higher crime rates well Texas, California, Florida etc have huge populations than other states which automaticly makes then have higher crime rates unlike other states which dont have it like Vermont, West Virgina etc

Please refer to Texas. Highest rate of executed criminals and highest rate of homicide.

also 2nd most popular state in USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

for all those saying that it doesnt help crime rates well here in UK since it was abolished in 1965 murder rates have tripled which means it had some impact in crime rates bringing it back would tone it down

No they haven't. According to figures provided here there were approximately 320 murders in the United Kingdom in 1965. In 1999- the top figure provided on that graph, there were 630 recorded murders (excluding those believed to be murder until a coroner's inquest demonstrated otherwise) and last year there were 550. Now, the population of the UK in 1965 was 43.7 million; in 2011 it was 62.3 million.

 

In the UK in 2011, there was a single recorded murder per 113,272.7 citizens.

In the UK in 1965, there was a single recorded murder per 136,562.5 citizens.

 

The difference is less than 21%. And, lets not forget, actual disappearances are almost non-existent these days. Detection of things like poisoning or fatal internal injuries have dramatically improved. The chances of a violent death being misdiagnosed as accidental or natural are far lower today. In actuality, I would estimate that the "true" murder rate is probably roughly the same today as it was then.

 

And for what its worth, the US states with the death penalty still see higher-than-average per-capita murder rates, so rabbiting on about differing population sizes makes no difference to those statistics.

 

 

All the more reason to execute them in a year or less.

So you are in essence saying that it's fair and just to summarily execute people who are not guilty of crimes, and that given a sufficiently long appeals process would demonstrate their absence of guilt through revelations, new discoveries, confessions, changes in evidential analysis and forensic science, to save the average taxpayer two or three dollars a year?

 

You are truly insane.

Edited by sivispacem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shiva.

Though death penalty is prevalent in my country, most of the criminals (murderers) are given prison imprisonment instead of Death penalty. They just don't care about spending rest of their life behind the bars. Even if there's gonna be death penalty, the criminals are not gonna change. That's my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs
for all those saying that it doesnt help crime rates well here in UK since it was abolished in 1965 murder rates have tripled which means it had some impact in crime rates bringing it back would tone it down & for all those saying states that have it have higher crime rates well Texas, California, Florida etc have huge populations than other states which automaticly makes then have higher crime rates unlike other states which dont have it like Vermont, West Virgina etc

Please refer to Texas. Highest rate of executed criminals and highest rate of homicide.

also 2nd most popular state in USA

What part of "rate" does your small brain not understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

 

All the more reason to execute them in a year or less.

So you are in essence saying that it's fair and just to summarily execute people who are not guilty of crimes, and that given a sufficiently long appeals process would demonstrate their absence of guilt through revelations, new discoveries, confessions, changes in evidential analysis and forensic science, to save the average taxpayer two or three dollars a year?

 

You are truly insane.

After a comprehensive TRIAL, and a "GUILTY" as charge decision by a Panel called a "JURY"

After up to ONE WHOLE YEAR of time to find Fault with the Trial.

You have the Insane idea that the CONVICT is 'Not Guilty'.

After all the money paid to CONVICT the person(s) you have deep pockets to keep paying?

 

You remind me of a Medical Nut, who keeps Cancer Patients alive as long as possible or (while 'looking' for a nonexistent cure) until they have the bank accounts drained, then let them die. Except you (and your ilk) want to keep the Criminal Cancer alive to eat the bank accounts of society. All that money wasted on Capital Criminals could (it won't be, but could) be used to take care of the needy.

Edited by lil weasel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

After all the money paid to CONVICT the person(s) you have deep pockets to keep paying?

Okay, so demonstrate exactly how much, per capita, it costs to keep a death row inmate alive for, say, 20 years. If its under a few dollars per capita per annum (as I suggest it is, we're talking in the billions of dollars then), then I would be more than happy to pay those two or three quid to prevent innocent people being sent to the gas chamber. A year is a very short period of time in law; its rare for people to even see their full appeal after one calendar year, and does not give sufficient scope to properly examine complex details of complex trial processes. If you are happy sending innocent people to their deaths for the sake of a few quid a year then that says more about you than it does about justice.

 

A better analogy would be you suggesting that it's perfectly acceptable to pull the plug on anyone in a coma, regardless of whether they have a chance of recovery or not, purely because it would save the taxpayer money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

You're the ones who keep saying it costs more to keep the CONVICTED on Death Row.

I don't have to prove anything, which you don't seem to understand.

I am saying to execute the CONVICT in a timely manner, or toss out the whole trial process, since you seem to believe everyone CONVICTED is an innocent lamb...

Begs the question, what percentage of Death Row convicts have been proven innocent?

How long did it take?

Was it 'new' eveidence?

Was it a Judicial Error?

Was it Prosecutorial Misconduct (liken to 'Nancy Grace')?

Was it Ineffective Defense?

Was it a recant?

Was the Jury tampered?

 

So, yes the Death Penalty in the UK would be useful to remove Capital Criminals from society.

Coma?

Edited by lil weasel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

what percentage of Death Row convicts have been proven innocent?

 

I think this is the key. Even if it is 0.000000000000000000000000001, I am willing to accept the full drawn out appeals process we have today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.