From 1972 to 1976.Tmy said:
But there are so many other variable in play that it's a practical imposssibility. How do you control for variations in the population's age, income, education, race, religion, and a hundred other variable?
death penalty please
- Thread starter Nie Trink Wasser
- Start date
-
- Tags
- penalty
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
"Maybe because the death penalty is more expensive than life in jail? Face it, you're going to finance his punishment anyhow "
I never bought this line. Yeah I know th person has to be defended in appeals but so what. Thats why we have Public Defenders. The exist even in non DP states.
You could probably argue that the DP saves money. THe "No Death Penalty" carrot is used to get guilty pleas in murder cases. In non DP state the perp has no reason to NOT go to trial. Hes facing life in prison, might as well go for broke and drag everyone thru a trial.
When it comes down to it, its cheaper to NOT prosecute them at all. We dont want to do that.
I never bought this line. Yeah I know th person has to be defended in appeals but so what. Thats why we have Public Defenders. The exist even in non DP states.
You could probably argue that the DP saves money. THe "No Death Penalty" carrot is used to get guilty pleas in murder cases. In non DP state the perp has no reason to NOT go to trial. Hes facing life in prison, might as well go for broke and drag everyone thru a trial.
When it comes down to it, its cheaper to NOT prosecute them at all. We dont want to do that.
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
Tony said:
Oh, for pity's sake, start a 'taxation is medieval' thread and quit derailing this one.
Uh... Isn't this graph completely worthless, without having to look at the criterion involved?
Fine. I just don't want to be financing his meals and his clothing and his housing and his TV.Bjorn said:Maybe because the death penalty is more expensive than life in jail? Face it, you're going to finance his punishment anyhow ...
At some point, do we - society at large - have a right to say that someone has so irredemably broken the social contract that we have no obligation to provide him with any of the benefits of civilized society any more?
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
BPSCG said:
In theory Im OK with the DP. IN THEORY COMMUNISM WORKS!!
My major beef with the DP is that is arbitrary and bias. I always point to the Susan Smith case. That biatch drowned her 2 kids cause they were a pain to her social life. She then went on national TV wh her sob story of lies. She made up some suspects. She couldve sent innocent men to the chair for her horrible crime.
Yet she got out of the DP cause of race 'n gender bias.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
How common is this view: that there is nothing ethically wrong with execution, but there is a practical objection that the judicial system is fallible and cannot be relied upon to return a correct verdict in all cases. Rather than risk injustice, it would be better to not have the death penalty unless/until the system can reach 100% accuracy.
Realistically, this means not executing anyone ever, but not for the same reasons as the "it's wrong" crowd.
Realistically, this means not executing anyone ever, but not for the same reasons as the "it's wrong" crowd.
So, if I understand correctly, your argument is that if one horribly guilty person escapes the death penalty, all horribly guilty persons should escape it.Tmy said:
What if one horribly guilty person escapes all punishment (think O.J. Simpson)? Do you claim that therefore all horribly guilty people should escape all punishment?
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
Tmy said:
Even if you caught the killer and was 100% sure (whatever that means), there is still the issue of whether the death penalty is the appropriate punishment. For example, you'll find that poor people tend to get the death penalty more than people who can afford good attorneys. That tells me that people are being executed when a life sentence, or 20 years, or whatever might be a more appropriate sentence.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Elio said:
Yes, and that is the popularly-heard view in opposition to the death penalty. I was making the point that not everyone has the same basis for objecting. A practical objection might convince those who are not swayed by rhetoric and arguments from an ethical viewpoint they do not share.
Of course, guarantee completely accurate verdicts and we'll turn on you:
Tmy said:
Go for it, then.
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
BPSCG said:
She didnt escape. She was let out of it. OJ was arguably found not guilty. This skank was found guilty and given a lighter punishment. WHY??? Murder cases are not like parking fines. Not everyone is given the same punishment for the crime. A law enforced arbitrarily is an unjust law.
Okay, let me ask you, how many innocent people are erroneously put to death each year? I myself don't know, but I doubt that even the most fervent death penalty opponents would argue that it is more than one or two (I'll be interested to stand corrected).TragicMonkey said:
Now, how many innocent people are killed by someone who's already done time for a prior murder? According to the US Department of Justice, "Within 3 years [of 1994], 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide." Complete link.
Table 3 in the reference indicates that the 18,001 people convicted of prior murders and released in 1994 went on to commit another 180 murders in the ensuing three years.
Conclusion: More innocent people die when convicted murderers are executed than when they are not.
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
Tony said:
You're using leading terms. A jail cell isn't a 'cage'.