The Death Penalty

[Mashirosen]

Please don't bring up Hitler in discussions not directly about WW2 or its related issues. It's tacky at best and at worst trivializes the evil he did. This isn't a warning, but if I see it again, the unofficial "Godwin's Law rule" will get a thread closed by default.

Back on topic, it seems kind of callous to me that in Texas, certain regulations prevent a condemned prisoner from getting cigarettes or alcohol with his or her last meal. I don't know why these regulations are in place -- maybe there's a sensible reason for them -- but who are we to deny these people anything on that day of all days, whether their guilt is 100% certain or not? The condemned should be shown the most compassion and mercy possible under the circumstances.

[Squishy Cheeks]

My thought on it is that the death penalty should either be done away with, or made so it actually is a deterrent i.e. make it so much worse than painless death. I think we need painful death penalty again.

[IHateMakingNames]

I don't see why the death penalty would cost so much... They could easily just take the criminal out back and shot them.

My guess is that all the paperwork and legal crap needed to do the death part itself is most of the cost...

[GatoFiero]

Originally Posted by IHateMakingNames

I don't see why the death penalty would cost so much... They could easily just take the criminal out back and shot them.

My guess is that all the paperwork and legal crap needed to do the death part itself is most of the cost...

The appeals process is extremely long and expensive. The reason there are so many chances for appeal is because the court wants to be as sure as possible that they're killing the right criminal.

[FunnyLooking]

<Let's say that Billy steals $500 from George. He then goes out and spends that $500 on drugs, or deposits it in his Swiss bank account. If he were arrested, which would make more sense: incarcerating him for seven years, or fining him $500, or chopping his hand off?>

Well, uhh... thinking about this logically... a fine would probably be the worst of all of them, seeing how that's a pathetic deterrant (Oh, you stole some money? All you have to do is give it back, if you're caught). We want to make sure he doesn't go right back into society to steal again, so prison does seem logical in that case.

Plus, chopping his hand off would probably make him MORE desperate for cash seeing how that would limit his job oppurtunities.

<Please don't bring up Hitler in discussions not directly about WW2 or its related issues.>

Uhh... okee-dokee, will do.

Oh, and kudos to GatoFiero for the cost figures.

[Devon Lake]

I don't think a fine would be so bad a punishment, but 500 dollars? Why of all figures would you choose "Just giving the stuff back? I mean, by that reasoning I might as well steal everything I get my hands on and consider it on loan until the cops figure out it's stolen.

Anyhow, the justice system does cost a good deal of money, and I honestly think it would be best paid for by fines. I just had an idea, what if criminals were punished by their tax rates going up a few percents? We tax working, buying things, booze, smokes, out of all the things we OUGHT to tax, why did no one think of criminal behavior? So much money is poured into keeping us safe, and it ought to be the people who do the opposite who pay for it.

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Honestly, you make no sense. If everyone were to be proven guilty before they got arrested, you'd actually need to hold a trial before you even make the arrest. Now, you can't hold a trial for someone who hasn't been arrested and charged with anything, therefore, no one would ever get arrested for anything, ever.

you can hold them somewhere other than jail or put an ankel bracelt on them. not exactly ideal either but much better than putting them in the slammer when they may be innocent

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

As for "getting caught red handed", that certainly wouldn’t be 100% proof of guilt in most circumstances. Nearly any "getting caught red handed" scenario would more or less be circumstantial evidence and thus would not be proof of guilt. You may see me standing over someone stabbed to death with a bloody knife in my hand after following a trail of screams, but it could just as easily have been that I was pulling the knife out AFTER the murder to help. A cop would actually have to be a personal eye witness to any crime to charge anyone, and rarely is a murder committed right out in broad day light when a cop happens to be loitering around.

i was talking about cops with moniter cameras. and the bloody knife scenerio isn't catching someone red handed, they'd have to catch you doing the stabbing

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

I mean, you act like when you're charged you’re guilty until proven innocent. What is it about merely being charged that is so damned wrong? It in no way is a claim that you have committed a crime; being charged is merely the opening of an investigation to determine whether you have committed a crime or not. To resist such an entirely necessary investigation, when there's probably cause and you're innocent anyway and thus have nothing to fear, is a complete and utter disregard for all civic virtue. Suck it up, it's your duty to society to go and watch yourself get declared innocent if your ever get charged for a crime you didn't commit.

well they fact that you're held in jail when you may be innocent doesn't help. but i meant charged and convicted not just charged

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

As for "justice", justice isn't petty vengeance; it's doing the right thing. Wronging someone because they've wronged someone else isn't going to make the world any better of a place. It's entirely unconstructive, and frankly I wouldn't want to sacrifice my social productivity so that a few hate mongers can get their jollies killing convicts.

but in some cases "eye for eye" is much more humane. what's worse? 10 years in prison or having to invite people into your home to steal because you were a burgler? admittedly this wouldn't be the case for murder but i only see it as being fair to the victim/s

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Imagine a scenario whereas a father is beating his son in retaliation for the child beating his brother (And this beating is entirely disproportionate to the previous one.). Imagine if I were to then beat the tar out of this fellow afterwards because I considered such a beating of a helpless child wrong. So, what have I accomplished in this circumstance?

i'm not talking about crimes of compassion like that, and as it is you usually get let off easy if it's proven that the case was such. 1 guy got 3 years for killing someone, but he did it because the guy raped his daughter. but anyway i'm talking about cases where innocent people are picked on

Well, uhh... thinking about this logically... a fine would probably be the worst of all of them, seeing how that's a pathetic deterrant (Oh, you stole some money? All you have to do is give it back, if you're caught). We want to make sure he doesn't go right back into society to steal again, so prison does seem logical in that case.

or preferrably just fine him $1000 and give it to the one he stole from, his thinking is "you steal money you lose that much" not "you steal money you give it back". that's better than sending him to prison, especially for a mere $500 bucks

[Devon Lake]

you can hold them somewhere other than jail or put an ankel bracelt on them. not exactly ideal either but much better than putting them in the slammer when they may be innocent.

And how exactly are you going to hold a trial for them without them being “falsely charged”? Besides, in most cases where the accused is detained, it’s because there’s reason to believe they’d otherwise run away. If I’ve just hacked my family to bits and been called to court, chances are if I’m not locked up, I’m not going to show up. Chances are I’ll saw my leg off and flee to a country with no extradition treaty.

i was talking about cops with moniter cameras. and the bloody knife scenerio isn't catching someone red handed, they'd have to catch you doing the stabbing

That’s simply unfeasible. Crimes aren’t committed in the plain view of cops and their video cameras for obvious reasons. You’d need a cop for every person just following them around with a camcorder if you ever wanted to catch anyone for anything. Hell, what happens if these morons dumb enough to commit crimes in broad daylight with a cop and his video camera around happens to have a ski mask on? And of course, if we’re letting go everyone who’s merely standing over a corpse with a bloody knife in their hand rather than bringing them in to the police station I’m sure you’ll find the population of Tahiti or something skyrocket from immigration.

well they fact that you're held in jail when you may be innocent doesn't help. but i meant charged and convicted not just charged

Being held in jail is a mere precaution, and a rather reasonable one if you’ve got a couple of battered abused women tied up in your basement. You may prefer to actually lose your life rather than to spend a single night in a cell after being charged (Which is really quite terrifying; if such a minor toe stubbing as a couple of nights in a cell is enough to make you wish for the end of your days instead then I can’t imagine how horrible your struggle against suicide must be and you have my utmost sympathies.) As for getting convicted, the legal system does as much as it possibly can. Under, “beyond a reasonable doubt” already gets a rather great deal of criminals charged. The number of murders and convicted murderer’s is GROSELY disproportional.

Proving guilt “Beyond any doubt at all”, you might get one murderer in a thousand; only the ones dumb enough to actually put a bullet through someone in broad daylight with a cop and camcorder around without wearing a mask, and probably half of them could probably use insanity as defense given how stupid they’d have to be. Thus, the justice system would fail to work; you’d have utter anarchy in the streets because it would be so obscenely easy to get away with crime. I mean, if there’s only a 1 in 1000 chance of being caught for murder, I can get away with 100 murders and there’s only a 10% chance I’ll get caught, so what’s to stop me? To even approach feasibility you’d need to blow just about all your work force and GDP on justice system (Which, not having an economy to pay for it would collapse in months.). In any case, a police state where the police have no power is just funny way of saying “anarchy”.

but in some cases "eye for eye" is much more humane. what's worse? 10 years in prison or having to invite people into your home to steal because you were a burgler? admittedly this wouldn't be the case for murder but i only see it as being fair to the victim/s

I don’t think so. Rich affluent people tend not to be burglars. Most burglars aren’t materialistically well off; that’s why they steal. Why, most burglars don’t even keep the nice shit they steal, they sell it second hand for money, usually to pay for narcotics. So my house gets broken into and my seven video game consoles get stolen; I’m supposed to be happy because I can walk home with some criminals soiled clothing and cardboard box of empty chip bags?

An eye for an eye is impractical for the same reason as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is sited as being impractical (Though in the case of the golden rule it’s often taken out of context but I’ll spare you that tangent.) How are you to punish a child molester? Let the child molest them? Really, that would probably wind up looking exactly the same as the other way around; the molester would be giddy, and kid scared for life. What do you do with rapists? Rape them? I’ll bet a good number of them would take pleasure in that punishment; you’d be doing them a favor.

What about shoplifting? Say I steal a $140 coat and sell it to a pawn shop and get caught. What happens? Do I let him steal one of my coats? The guy owns a coat shop, what use would my coat be to him? Do I merely pay back the $140? That’s just paying me the purchase the coat, and really of very little benefit to the shop keep. If the cost for a single cost from the manufacturer was $120, he’d merely make his 20$ profit for the sale, while the theft would have cost him about six times as much besides causing a horrible pain in the ass for him in dealing with inventory and accounting. If the crook were to return the coat and pay a mere 140$, one crook would need to be caught for every crook that got away to pay off the cost lost to the retailer, and no one is going to shoplift where they estimate that the chances of getting caught are 50%; So, by that policy the shopkeepers would always loose money from shoplifting and the shoplifters would profit handsomely in material wealth. Assuming can make $70 selling these coats hot, as long as I’m caught no more than often than one third of the time I could make a feasible living of shoplifting.

I don’t think you’d get 10 year for stealing anyway, unless it’s grand larceny or something. Fines for stealing should be enough to at least compensate retailers for the damage and frustration they receive from shoplifters.

i'm not talking about crimes of compassion like that, and as it is you usually get let off easy if it's proven that the case was such. 1 guy got 3 years for killing someone, but he did it because the guy raped his daughter. but anyway i'm talking about cases where innocent people are picked on

That wasn’t the point at all. The point was someone doing something bad was given a beating and it did absolutely nothing valuable whatsoever and merely caused more problems.

[FunnyLooking]

<Proving guilt “Beyond any doubt at all”, you might get one murderer in a thousand>

Not really. You'd never catch ANY murderers, because it's always possible that he didn't kill him (regardless if it's on tape or anything). It's possible that a fairy came down and took over his soul/body, or edited the video camera to make it look like it was that guy. It's highly improbable, yeah, but it's still possible. That's why we use "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", so we don't have to deal with the possibilities of fairies. Because, reasonably, fairies don't do that.

I mean, if we're using beyond any doubt at all, complete 100%, then even admitting that you're guilty wouldn't be enough.

<well they fact that you're held in jail when you may be innocent doesn't help. but i meant charged and convicted not just charged>

If you're convicted then you've been proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt, (disregarding the possibility of fairies). If it's been proven fairly, and our court systems are honestly pretty fair, that you committed a crime, then you'll suffer the consequences. If we find out you're innocent, then hell, we'll let you go. If we kill you and then find out you're innocent, then hell, there's not much we can do about it, can we?

<What do you do with rapists? Rape them?>

Well, not necessarily. I think that's taking Eye for an Eye too literally. For rapists you would hit them in the balls a bunch of times or something, I dunno. But it's still not productive and bordering on Cruel & Unusual Punishment.

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

And how exactly are you going to hold a trial for them without them being “falsely charged”?

what the fuck?

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Besides, in most cases where the accused is detained, it’s because there’s reason to believe they’d otherwise run away. If I’ve just hacked my family to bits and been called to court, chances are if I’m not locked up, I’m not going to show up. Chances are I’ll saw my leg off and flee to a country with no extradition treaty.

hence the ankle braclet or at least holding them somewhere other than in jail

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

That’s simply unfeasible. Crimes aren’t committed in the plain view of cops and their video cameras for obvious reasons. You’d need a cop for every person just following them around with a camcorder if you ever wanted to catch anyone for anything. Hell, what happens if these morons dumb enough to commit crimes in broad daylight with a cop and his video camera around happens to have a ski mask on? And of course, if we’re letting go everyone who’s merely standing over a corpse with a bloody knife in their hand rather than bringing them in to the police station I’m sure you’ll find the population of Tahiti or something skyrocket from immigration.

i was talking about little things that don't warrant a huge investigation like speeding and the like

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Proving guilt “Beyond any doubt at all”, you might get one murderer in a thousand; only the ones dumb enough to actually put a bullet through someone in broad daylight with a cop and camcorder around without wearing a mask, and probably half of them could probably use insanity as defense given how stupid they’d have to be. Thus, the justice system would fail to work; you’d have utter anarchy in the streets because it would be so obscenely easy to get away with crime. I mean, if there’s only a 1 in 1000 chance of being caught for murder, I can get away with 100 murders and there’s only a 10% chance I’ll get caught, so what’s to stop me? To even approach feasibility you’d need to blow just about all your work force and GDP on justice system (Which, not having an economy to pay for it would collapse in months.). In any case, a police state where the police have no power is just funny way of saying “anarchy”.

yes it is possible:

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

microscopic peaces of your clothing(containing oil from your skin, thus dna evidence) and skin wither and fall to the ground constantly. it's one of many reasons your clothes deterriorate over time. everything you do has a very minute influence on the invirnment around it. you just can't completelycover it up

hence it IS possible. it would require a lot of work, but it's possible. about the only thing they can't prove is how many breaths you took, and for all i know they just may be able to prove that as well. forensic science is extremly advanced and can in fact prove anything given the time

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

I don’t think so. Rich affluent people tend not to be burglars. Most burglars aren’t materialistically well off; that’s why they steal. Why, most burglars don’t even keep the nice shit they steal, they sell it second hand for money, usually to pay for narcotics. So my house gets broken into and my seven video game consoles get stolen; I’m supposed to be happy because I can walk home with some criminals soiled clothing and cardboard box of empty chip bags?

if they can't give things back they can be forced to work for it and the proceeds go to the person they robbed

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

What do you do with rapists? Rape them? I’ll bet a good number of them would take pleasure in that punishment; you’d be doing them a favor.

it wouldn't be rape if they took pleasure in it, there a drastic measures you can go to so as to ensure they wouldn't, but i'd be breaking the rules to explain them

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

What about shoplifting? Say I steal a $140 coat and sell it to a pawn shop and get caught. What happens? Do I let him steal one of my coats?

would you honestly rather go to jail? hell if i were caught doing something like that and had to give up a coat or face jail time i'd give up the damn coat

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

I don’t think you’d get 10 year for stealing anyway, unless it’s grand larceny or something. Fines for stealing should be enough to at least compensate retailers for the damage and frustration they receive from shoplifters.

i was talking about burglery, not petty theft