Life Sentence vs Death Sentence

[Pyrrhic]

Everything lil weasel said.

[El Dildo]

I've never supported the death penalty.

capital punishment does not work.

 

I mean there's only 2 arguments for capital punishment and they're both weak.

 

1.) revenge. an eye for an eye. the most base and crude form of justice.

but killing someone won't change what they did. it won't bring back whoever they murdered or replace whatever they took from this world. all it does is give the convicted person an easy way out. they no longer have to suffer in prison or live with the thoughts and memory of their actions. death gives them peace.

 

2.) deterrent. make the punishment harsh enough and people won't commit the crime.

but this NEVER WORKED. never ever. does the death penalty stop people from murdering and raping? no. simple as that.

 

and as others have pointed out, it's more expensive for the state (in terms of tax dollars) to prosecute the death penalty than to lock someone up in prison for life.

so lets review: the death penalty is expensive, doesn't deter anyone from major crime, and only offers the convict a swift release from the suffering of their own life.

 

being in favor of the death penalty is just ignorant and shallow.

[lil weasel]

 

eing in favor of the death penalty is just ignorant and shallow.

Again, the nonsense of cheaper to lock'em away and forget 'em.

The only reason it co$ts more to execute a CONVICTED Criminal is that we have NO end to appeals. Put them to death, and the expense ends.

 

Simple answers to life's problems hurt.

 

I will remind you all that Every period of time considers itself the Civilized Era.

And in the future when the reasonable minded people come to realize that keeping people locked away in a dungeon until they die is Brutal, barbarian torture there will be a new civilized society.

 

So... Now, you say, 'All hail the Guantanamo method of criminal treatment.'

[ForumName]

 

Why do people keep saying it's less expensive to lock someone up forever providing, medical treatment, food, ext, rather then executing them? It's complete nonsense. If costs are really your only concern I say we limit people to one appeal and bring back the firing squad. It is more humane then lethal injection anyway.

 

There is no arguments against capital punishment in my opinion. People are acting as if innocent people are always executed when in reality in the modern world they are not. If you have DNA evidence, multiple eyewitnesses, the killer's wallet found at the scene, he's guilty. You say "Oh....Let him suffer in prison!" Yeah right. Like people suffer in our prisons. They get everything they need, three meals a day, exercise, the works, if we had prisons equivalent to Siberian labor camps sure then would make sense, but we don't, they are closer to a day spa than to that. The anti capital punishment crowd has no valid arguments. The only thing they can do is get on their soap box and preach how "It's wrong to kill a mass murderer. We s should just let him live in comfort for the rest of his life mmkay."

Edited April 16, 2013 by ForumName

[El Dildo]

 

The only reason it co$ts more to execute a CONVICTED Criminal is that we have NO end to appeals. Put them to death, and the expense ends.

this is why no one takes you seriously.

you contradict yourself in the same sentence.

 

unless you change how criminal state prosecution works from the top to the bottom, it always be more expensive to try and execute someone than to simply lock them up.

 

 

Why do people keep saying it's less expensive to lock someone up forever providing, medical treatment, food, ext, rather then executing them?

because it's true?

I mean that's one reason...

 

let me know when you've changed the entire process of state prosecution.

let me know when you've reduced the cost litigation to balance the cost of imprisonment.

 

after that, we'll talk.

 

 

There is no arguments against capital punishment in my opinion.

well then your opinion is wrong.

 

prison is not a luxury 5-star hotel with a spa.

3 meals a day? yeah, 3 sh*tty cheap meals that taste like cardboard.

exercise? yeah, some weight benches outside in a yard surrounded by razor wire and 250 other gang banging thugs who won't hesitate to stab or rape you if you look at them the wrong way.

 

if you think prison is so luxurious, then go kill somebody and get yourself a free ticket.

they'll find you a nice bed and a toilet to scrub. just watch your assh*le whenever you bend over...

 

it's really simple.

capital punishment doesn't work.

 

why would you execute someone?

revenge? doesn't change anything.

 

deterrence?

the death penalty doesn't stop anyone from murdering and raping.

 

so what good is it?

[ExtremoMania]

@lil weasel nailed it everything though. Good job there bro.

 

I personally think death penalty is an end to all means of expenses, rather than having the crook be sentenced for life and be given some benefits for the next 20 years after serving his imprisonment. That is the kind of law that we follow here. Since some of our crook politicians been discussing this since 2011, I personally think that death penalty should be reinstated here in our country.

[sivispacem]

Who cares about 20 years from now, let alone 2 years.

Execute them NOW. Don't worry about some pie in the sky future.

Right. Give me one single justification for this. One. Explain to me, morally, how it's proper and right to kill hundreds of innocent people for the specific purpose of saving the taxpayer a few cents a year.

 

 

It doesn't matter IF a person is innocent. Execute them right away and their suffering by being caged is ended. Most 'criminals' spend a few years in Jail before they even are tried.

Do you even believe in our Justice System and Constitution or even the concept of Due process. Ever heard of Innocent until proven guilty.

Don't bother. He only believes in rights and values when he can specifically pick and chose what they apply for. Case in point, he believes that restriction of firearms in any measurably way is a gross violation of the Second Amendment, but has no qualms about having hundreds of innocent people executed because he personally thinks that people get reincarnated anyway, and hey it saves him a few bucks over his lifetime.

 

Trying to have a sensible discussion with him is like trying to heard cats whilst riding a unicycle blindfold. I wouldn't mind the bigotry, illogical ramblings, senseless rants, conspiracy theories, undeserving sense of self-satisfaction and repeated suggestions of superiority quite so much if he weren't such a colossal f*cking hypocrite.

[lil weasel]

Talking to the Wall:

• Years may be spent gathering Proof before the Arrest.

• Years may be spent gathering more Proof after the arrest.

• What about Due process isn't to be understood, when a Jury Convicts that is a part of Due process?

• What part of Due Process regarding a year of appeals don’t you understand after a Jury Convicts?

• Presumption of innocence ends with Conviction.

• Prove that “Hundreds of Innocents” are convicted of Felony Murder(s) without Due Process. (Not counting Nancy [dis]Grace trials.)

• Juries can only Convict ‘beyond a REASONABLE doubt’.

• Prove that without endless Appeals, that the cost of incarceration is cheaper.

• Prove that society benefits from keeping Convicted, by a Jury, Death Penalty Convicts alive more than two weeks, or after a year of appeals.

• How about cold storage (cryogenics) for Life/Death sentence Convictions. We’re just as likely to find cures for ‘crime’ causes as we are for finding innocents in time. You get to have your ‘everybody’ that is convicted is really innocent and eat them too.

• Morality? That’s tribal/religious and has no stance in Written Law. Which is why laws are written rather than left to mob whim.

• Our Sheldon has already expressed his disdain for the U. S. Constitution, since it is such an Olde outdated piece of paper, and has no meaningful substance in this modern world.

• The U. S. Constitution Second Amendment uses the word ‘Infringement’, which to Our Sheldon has no meaning. To U.S. it has a meaning as defined by even simple dictionaries.

• This has all been said before, it's so sad that simple ideas need to be constantly restated because some people have little regard to society as a whole.

• What is the purpose of locking a criminal away. They come out of prison more civilized, as often as innocents are convicted.

[Freezer89]

Wow, can't believe that many people are for death penalty.. I am glad that I live in a country without this barbaric and unhuman method.

 

No matter what the culprit did, a death sentence is not justified. And even so, locking him/her up in a very small and dark room with only bread and water for life is way more justified than just killing him/her.

[lil weasel]

 

Wow, can't believe that many people are for death penalty.. I am glad that I live in a country without this barbaric and unhuman method.

 

[L]ocking him/her up in a very small and dark room with only bread and water for life is way more justified than just killing him/her.

You don't consider that Brutal, Barbaric, and inhuman? Strange...

 

I surmise you don't believe in life after death... so be it.

[Freezer89]

Wow, can't believe that many people are for death penalty.. I am glad that I live in a country without this barbaric and unhuman method.

 

[L]ocking him/her up in a very small and dark room with only bread and water for life is way more justified than just killing him/her.

You don't consider that Brutal, Barbaric, and inhuman? Strange...

Killing someone and locking someone up is different.. sure it may still be "barbaric and inhuman" I have to admit. But that also was just a suggestion "equally" to death penalty and it's still better to take a life away.

 

You would be no different than the murderer/rapist/whatever the culprit did if you think you can control someones life and decide that this life should be killed, just because he/she killed another life/lives.

 

 

[Clem Fandango]

 

I have very very strong feelings supporting execution/the death penalty. Majority of the assignments I've done in the last three years have been abut the benefits of the death penalty and it's re-introduction in Australia.

 

A close friend of our family was raped and murdered by a serial killer, Paul Denyer, in 1993 I believe the year was, and her last assignment she did (she was 18 years old) was an argument supporting the death penalty.

 

The killer is now serving three life sentences in prison and is using OUR tax payer money to become a transgender MtF. I think that the government should be ashamed to be forcing the FAMILIES of the three people he raped and murdered to be PAYING for his oestrogen and hair extensions etc. etc.

 

lil weasel hit the nail on the head.

The death penalty costs more than keeping someone in prison.

 

Sounds like what you're arguing for are revenge killings. Further, your argument can be applied to nearly any criminal. If I lose my life savings because of some white collar criminal, apparently you think he should be executed, because how can anyone expect me to use my tax dollars to support him?

Edited April 19, 2013 by Melchior

[lil weasel]

 

The death penalty costs more than keeping someone in prison.

 

So much, blah, blah, blah...

The reason it costs more is because the Lawyers make money on appeals.

After a Year Execute the person and put an end to the waste of court time and money. The convict has already had Due Process. There has to be an End.

Get on to the next case, use the money saved, and prove the next 'innocent' person innocent.

[sivispacem]

Statistically, nations with the death penalty tend to be less wealthy, less liberal, more oppressive andmre frequently characterised by civil and social strife. The simple fact of the matter is that decent, respectful people living in moderate and free societies tend to view it negatively.

 

Yes, yes Weasel, we're all aware that you support the arbitrary execution of anyone on whatever whim seems to be applicable all to save you a few dollars a year. Generally people who are sound of mind accept that miscarriages of justice are not only problematic but also frequent, but obviously a few bucks saved is a fair price to pay for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people in your eyes.

 

Madness.

Edited April 19, 2013 by sivispacem

[Clem Fandango]

 

The death penalty costs more than keeping someone in prison.

 

So much, blah, blah, blah...

The reason it costs more is because the Lawyers make money on appeals.

After a Year Execute the person and put an end to the waste of court time and money. The convict has already had Due Process. There has to be an End.

Get on to the next case, use the money saved, and prove the next 'innocent' person innocent.

So after a year... no more appeals? You have one year to successfully appeal or you die, all in the interest of saving a minuscule amount of money?

 

I'd hate to live in the dystopian society you seem to yearn for, where all policy stems from knee jerk reactions.

 

[lil weasel]

So after a year... no more appeals? You have one year to successfully appeal or you die, all in the interest of saving a minuscule amount of money?

 

What do you believe a legal appeal to be?

It is supposed to be a redress of a legal mistake, or compelling new evidence.

For the legal mistake, how long does it take to find one?

Compelling new evidence; what about the alleged investigation(s) who's fault is that?

How much is this minuscule amount of money?

 

[Clem Fandango]

So after a year... no more appeals? You have one year to successfully appeal or you die, all in the interest of saving a minuscule amount of money?

 

What do you believe a legal appeal to be?

It is supposed to be a redress of a legal mistake, or compelling new evidence.

For the legal mistake, how long does it take to find one?

Compelling new evidence; what about the alleged investigation(s) who's fault is that?

How much is this minuscule amount of money?

This is all gibberish.

[Pyrrhic]

 

I have very very strong feelings supporting execution/the death penalty. Majority of the assignments I've done in the last three years have been abut the benefits of the death penalty and it's re-introduction in Australia.

 

A close friend of our family was raped and murdered by a serial killer, Paul Denyer, in 1993 I believe the year was, and her last assignment she did (she was 18 years old) was an argument supporting the death penalty.

 

The killer is now serving three life sentences in prison and is using OUR tax payer money to become a transgender MtF. I think that the government should be ashamed to be forcing the FAMILIES of the three people he raped and murdered to be PAYING for his oestrogen and hair extensions etc. etc.

 

lil weasel hit the nail on the head.

The death penalty costs more than keeping someone in prison.

 

Sounds like what you're arguing for are revenge killings. Further, your argument can be applied to nearly any criminal. If I lose my life savings because of some white collar criminal, apparently you think he should be executed, because how can anyone expect me to use my tax dollars to support him?

If you lose all your money, you're OK.

If you die, you die.

 

I think you were missing my point regarding the tax-payer's money.

People who have had their loved ones brutally raped and murdered are paying for the PROVEN (by CONFESSION) murderer's cable TV and warm gourmet dinners, things that many people OUTSIDE the fences of a prison don't have.

 

So by that logic, if you're poor and on the street kill a man and go to prison, you'll live a better life.

Edited April 19, 2013 by lzw3

[Clem Fandango]

I have very very strong feelings supporting execution/the death penalty. Majority of the assignments I've done in the last three years have been abut the benefits of the death penalty and it's re-introduction in Australia.

 

A close friend of our family was raped and murdered by a serial killer, Paul Denyer, in 1993 I believe the year was, and her last assignment she did (she was 18 years old) was an argument supporting the death penalty.

 

The killer is now serving three life sentences in prison and is using OUR tax payer money to become a transgender MtF. I think that the government should be ashamed to be forcing the FAMILIES of the three people he raped and murdered to be PAYING for his oestrogen and hair extensions etc. etc.

 

lil weasel hit the nail on the head.

The death penalty costs more than keeping someone in prison.

 

Sounds like what you're arguing for are revenge killings. Further, your argument can be applied to nearly any criminal. If I lose my life savings because of some white collar criminal, apparently you think he should be executed, because how can anyone expect me to use my tax dollars to support him?

If you lose all your money, you die.

If you die, you die.

what.

[Pyrrhic]

Edited, check up there ^

[Clem Fandango]

Edited, check up there ^

Yeah and why can't your argument be applied to other crimes? If all crimes have victims, and the victims pay taxes, and it's unfair to expect victims to have to pay to house people who wronged them with said taxes, why don't we just execute all criminals?

 

Also, as I already pointed out, the more of the victims tax money gets spent on executing someone than imprisoning them for life.

[Pyrrhic]

Also, as I already pointed out, the more of the victims tax money gets spent on executing someone than imprisoning them for life.

That's a terrible point.

The execution of the murderer is something the victim's loved-ones WANTS.

Do you think they want to be paying for his/her sex change and pay television, things that people on the outside world rarely have?

Of course they don't.

Natalie Russel's parents would pay thousands and thousands of dollars to have Paul (or Paula as he likes to be called now thanks to taxpayer's money) Denyer executed, and I have personally heard them say this in person, not some fancy bullsh*t report.

[sivispacem]

 

So after a year... no more appeals? You have one year to successfully appeal or you die, all in the interest of saving a minuscule amount of money?

 

What do you believe a legal appeal to be?

It is supposed to be a redress of a legal mistake, or compelling new evidence.

For the legal mistake, how long does it take to find one?

Compelling new evidence; what about the alleged investigation(s) who's fault is that?

How much is this minuscule amount of money?

You are aware that most wrongful conviction eternal requests take longer than a year just to be filed, let alone be heard? What about the numbers of people vindicated after 10+ years on death row because of the application of genetic profiling? Huge revolutions in criminology and forensic happen every so often, how is it fair that someone unnecessarily loses their life because they happened to be convicted 2 years before a discovery that exonerates them?

 

Also, most murder victim families, even in the US, are opposed to the death penalty.

[Clem Fandango]

Also, as I already pointed out, the more of the victims tax money gets spent on executing someone than imprisoning them for life.

That's a terrible point.

The execution of the murderer is something the victim's loved-ones WANTS.

Do you think they want to be paying for his/her sex change and pay television, things that people on the outside world rarely have?

Of course they don't.

Natalie Russel's parents would pay thousands and thousands of dollars to have Paul (or Paula as he likes to be called now thanks to taxpayer's money) Denyer executed, and I have personally heard them say this in person, not some fancy bullsh*t report.

You still aren't explaining why this can't be applied to other criminals. If I lose all my money in a ponzi scheme and the person who orchestrated it goes to jail, I then have to pay for his food, TV, exercise equipment, bedding, toiletries, electricity and plumbing. In your mind, this is unacceptable, so should he be executed?

[Finn 7 five 11]

Giving someone life in prison, in my opinion, is the worst thing you can do to a person. He or she has to watch there back for life from getting raped or stabbed. That's how you make murderers suffer, you destroy the mind, not the body. Death is setting them free, it's the easy way out.

I fail to see what making murderers suffer will accomplish. Just like the death penalty, this will not bring victims back to life. There's nothing you can do to them that will equal the damage they have done so what's the point?

The point is to separate that criminal from society so they don't go on killing/raping/beating/mugging more people, that is the whole idea of prison.

 

Anyway, death penalty is pointless, and so are super-long sentences, Sivis has pointed out many times how Norway rehabilitates criminals incredibly well on really short sentences, that's what should happen, then the criminals can be released back into society and not cause the problems that got them locked up.

 

Anyone pulling out the revenge argument, should just be quiet by the way, I think serving 10 years in prison and being rehabilitated should be plenty of justice, it's not like keeping them there longer is going to undo the crime, If someone murdered a family member of mine, I would be quite happy if they did 10 years in prison and came out a regular person, I would not feel any better if they served 20 years in prison instead. People who do things like this are messed up in the head, they deserve to pay for their crime, but taking their whole life away isn't really fair if they can turn it around, and like I stated, it's useless, it achieves absolutely nothing, instead of having one life ruined, you have 2 lives ruined.

 

 

The only reason it co$ts more to execute a CONVICTED Criminal is that we have NO end to appeals. Put them to death, and the expense ends.

this is why no one takes you seriously.

you contradict yourself in the same sentence.

 

unless you change how criminal state prosecution works from the top to the bottom, it always be more expensive to try and execute someone than to simply lock them up.

 

Contradictions riddles through his current arguments. The reason a Death Sentence costs more is because they need to be 100% certain the person is guilty, and even then new evidence could surface proving otherwise.

The Death Penalty is too final, and it doesn't save money, and it doesn't help anyone at all.

 

[Pyrrhic]

Also, as I already pointed out, the more of the victims tax money gets spent on executing someone than imprisoning them for life.

That's a terrible point.

The execution of the murderer is something the victim's loved-ones WANTS.

Do you think they want to be paying for his/her sex change and pay television, things that people on the outside world rarely have?

Of course they don't.

Natalie Russel's parents would pay thousands and thousands of dollars to have Paul (or Paula as he likes to be called now thanks to taxpayer's money) Denyer executed, and I have personally heard them say this in person, not some fancy bullsh*t report.

You still aren't explaining why this can't be applied to other criminals. If I lose all my money in a ponzi scheme and the person who orchestrated it goes to jail, I then have to pay for his food, TV, exercise equipment, bedding, toiletries, electricity and plumbing. In your mind, this is unacceptable, so should he be executed?

As I said earlier, you are still physically healthy even after losing all your money whether it be to a hacking criminal or to a terrible gambling addiction.

Maybe not mentally; but physically.

Personally I believe the death penalty should only apply to the most serious crimes such as rape+murder and crimes against humanity, maybe that is what you were missing.

[Clem Fandango]

Also, as I already pointed out, the more of the victims tax money gets spent on executing someone than imprisoning them for life.

That's a terrible point.

The execution of the murderer is something the victim's loved-ones WANTS.

Do you think they want to be paying for his/her sex change and pay television, things that people on the outside world rarely have?

Of course they don't.

Natalie Russel's parents would pay thousands and thousands of dollars to have Paul (or Paula as he likes to be called now thanks to taxpayer's money) Denyer executed, and I have personally heard them say this in person, not some fancy bullsh*t report.

You still aren't explaining why this can't be applied to other criminals. If I lose all my money in a ponzi scheme and the person who orchestrated it goes to jail, I then have to pay for his food, TV, exercise equipment, bedding, toiletries, electricity and plumbing. In your mind, this is unacceptable, so should he be executed?

As I said earlier, you are still physically healthy even after losing all your money whether it be to a hacking criminal or to a terrible gambling addiction.

Maybe not mentally; but physically.

Personally I believe the death penalty should only apply to the most serious crimes such as rape+murder and crimes against humanity, maybe that is what you were missing.

But I could feel just as much resentment to someone who robbed me of my life savings than someone who killed my friend. If victim resentment over having to support someone who wronged them is the reason you support the death penalty, why doesn't it apply universally?

 

Let's just say someone breaks a bottle over my head and scars me permanently so I'll never look presentable; a plethora of career opportunities will be closed. I'd hate them just as much as you hate Paul Denyer... yet I still have to support them while they're in jail. What's the difference?

[lil weasel]

 

Also, as I already pointed out, the more of the victims tax money gets spent on executing someone than imprisoning them for life.

It does make a good sound bite. "It costs more to Execute, than jail someone for Life". Yep! it does sound good. Now, do the bookkeeping and prove it.

It is something like 20,000$US a year to house a prisoner.

The rest of the money is to pay the Court Costs.

Execute the Convicted Criminal or let him/her loose, since you and others believe that the majority of convicted are innocent.

Why bother with a trial if these people are 'really' innocent?

Just because the Jury Said (s)he is guilty doesn't mean anything?

Just because there is no finding of trial error doesn't mean (s)he is guilty?

Just because there is no 'new' compelling evidence found doesn't mean (s)he is guilty?

 

Execute all criminals?

Good idea, but the Cops (believe it or not) don't want to be at risk making arrests. Three time losers don't want to be taken so they fight back.

Remember, Cops can't prevent crimes, they can only investigate what has already been committed. Cops don't want to confront real criminals, they would rather 'police the area' (except for the few 'John Waynes', as they were called).

[Clem Fandango]

Also, as I already pointed out, the more of the victims tax money gets spent on executing someone than imprisoning them for life.

It does make a good sound bite. "It costs more to Execute, than jail someone for Life". Yep! it does sound good. Now, do the bookkeeping and prove it.

It is something like 20,000$US a year to house a prisoner.

The rest of the money is to pay the Court Costs.

Execute the Convicted Criminal or let him/her loose, since you and others believe that the majority of convicted are innocent.

Why bother with a trial if these people are 'really' innocent?

Just because the Jury Said (s)he is guilty doesn't mean anything?

Just because there is no finding of trial error doesn't mean (s)he is guilty?

Just because there is no 'new' compelling evidence found doesn't mean (s)he is guilty?

 

Execute all criminals?

Good idea, but the Cops (believe it or not) don't want to be at risk making arrests. Three time losers don't want to be taken so they fight back.

Remember, Cops can't prevent crimes, they can only investigate what has already been committed. Cops don't want to confront real criminals, they would rather 'police the area' (except for the few 'John Waynes', as they were called).

what is this i don't even

[Finn 7 five 11]

Also, as I already pointed out, the more of the victims tax money gets spent on executing someone than imprisoning them for life.

That's a terrible point.

The execution of the murderer is something the victim's loved-ones WANTS.

Do you think they want to be paying for his/her sex change and pay television, things that people on the outside world rarely have?

Of course they don't.

Natalie Russel's parents would pay thousands and thousands of dollars to have Paul (or Paula as he likes to be called now thanks to taxpayer's money) Denyer executed, and I have personally heard them say this in person, not some fancy bullsh*t report.

You still aren't explaining why this can't be applied to other criminals. If I lose all my money in a ponzi scheme and the person who orchestrated it goes to jail, I then have to pay for his food, TV, exercise equipment, bedding, toiletries, electricity and plumbing. In your mind, this is unacceptable, so should he be executed?

And he seems to be treating prison like a daycare centre.

Honestly, wanting someone else to die for revenge is pointless Lzw3, look at it this way:

 

- Ignoring that the revenge part of it is stupid - How is killing someone revenge? They will be dead, they won't feel anything, they won't know they are dead, they won't feel the revenge.

Having them incarcerated for life however will have them experience the revenge, that's justice being served, so if anything, being in prison for life should be more revengeful than a death sentence.

 

I think though - after reading a bit about Norway's crime system - they should make sentences far shorter, and rehabilitate the people so when they go back out, they will be regular people and can live a life. Honestly makes no difference at all if they are in prison for 10 or 20 years man, it's just a number, they've still been in there for a f*cking long time.