By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Capital Punishment

the2real4mafol said:
Dr.Grass said:
the2real4mafol said:

and South Africa is supposed to be one of the more advanced countries in the continent. Not great. 


Unfortunately I cannot be straightforward here about the situation as it would seem quite racist.

For example, you might find that the scientific research going on here isn't too shabby, until you realize that without the european influence it would be completely nonexistent.

That might be why so many African countries fucked their economies up when the Europeans left in the 1950's and 1960's. They had no idea how they worked because they weren't shown how to because of how we Europeans treated them. Also, before we arrived they still lived in tribes mostly. Very different to how Europeans lived. 


(this is going off topic fast, so this is just me acknowledging the fact)

That's one explanation. But the question of how long it will take is one without any answer. My personal opinion seems steeped in skepticism. I have almost no faith in the people of this country. All I (ever) see is corruption, stupidity, incompetence and a complete and utter lack of foresight. I don't (ever) read the newspaper because it would turn me into one sad, bitter old man. Rather, I enjoy the amazingly beautiful country we have. It's just stunning.

FYI, South Africa is one of the most resource rich countries in the world. So fucking much minerals in our soil. We could be using it to create a sustainable future, instead it is squandered by the few (idiots) at the top.

Please tell me if I seem out of line.



Around the Network
Dr.Grass said:
the2real4mafol said:
That might be why so many African countries fucked their economies up when the Europeans left in the 1950's and 1960's. They had no idea how they worked because they weren't shown how to because of how we Europeans treated them. Also, before we arrived they still lived in tribes mostly. Very different to how Europeans lived. 

 


(this is going off topic fast, so this is just me acknowledging the fact)

That's one explanation. But the question of how long it will take is one without any answer. My personal opinion seems steeped in skepticism. I have almost no faith in the people of this country. All I (ever) see is corruption, stupidity, incompetence and a complete and utter lack of foresight. I don't (ever) read the newspaper because it would turn me into one sad, bitter old man. Rather, I enjoy the amazingly beautiful country we have. It's just stunning.

FYI, South Africa is one of the most resource rich countries in the world. So fucking much minerals in our soil. We could be using it to create a sustainable future, instead it is squandered by the few (idiots) at the top.

Please tell me if I seem out of line.

I don't know that much about politics in South Africa, but with a guy like Jacob Zuma in power. This sounds about right. Unfortunately, society in general seems to disappoint like this, no matter what country it is. Many of us live in a so called democracy and yet we have little say in how it runs.  



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Barozi said:
dsgrue3 said:
Life sentence of 80 years for 1 inmate costs approximately $4,000,000 in taxpayer monies.

It's way too expensive to keep prisoners alive who are serving life sentences. They also get full healthcare.

Exterminate the cretins and do away with victimless crimes.

Just wasteful an unnecessary usage of tax dollars.

$4m ?

That would be more than an average worker would earn lifetime. Sounds like a bit too much but I agree that it's definitely expensive.

EDIT: Found some numbers from 2004.
Average annual costs of an inmate is $22,600 a year, so that would be $1.8m in 80 years (which is unrealistic since that would be far from the average a lifetime inmate would spend in prison)
life expectancy for an 18 year old male would be around 74 years (a bit lower but I don't find the exact number), so if he gets a life long sentence he will be in prison for 56 years on average, which would then be $1.2m (using the 2004 numbers)

Nice to have some numbers. I must admit I used 50k as the basis due to an economics professor. They may have been referring to a specific state.

According to this (2009 FY) it's closer to your figure at $25,251.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/02/03/2011-2363/annual-determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration

Let's take an average life sentence of 50 years. $1.26M

According to this article, 10% of all prisoners are serving life sentences.

7.3 Million are incarcerated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Prison_population

730,000 are serving life sentences.

730,000 * 1.26M = 919,800,000,000

We're spending nearly a trillion dollars on criminals serving life sentences. 



Lafiel said:
why would you choose a random comment in the bible like "eye for an eye" over an actual commandment "though shalt not kill" ?

I'm sorry, but from my perspective to argue in favor of capital punishment by citing the bible is nothing but folly


Is that in the bible?   Eye for an Eye is a law from the oldest set of laws we have on reccord.  The code of Hammurabi.

(Although it's not strictly an eye for an eye, that was only if you were from the same caste.)



Dr.Grass said:
Lafiel said:
why would you choose a random comment in the bible like "eye for an eye" over an actual commandment "though shalt not kill" ?

I'm sorry, but from my perspective to argue in favor of capital punishment by citing the bible is nothing but folly


Not to mention that the original word for "kill" applies to all forms of killing, not just humans.

Forget about sensical discussions based on bibilical statements.

As i recall in the actual hebrew, in the commandments the most accurate translation is "though shall not murder" and specifically wasn't applied to all versions of killing.

 

Wikipedia but...

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



Around the Network
seiya19 said:
dsgrue3 said:

Wow, it's very clear you are governed by your emotions instead of rational thought.

Not really much more to say.

Not feeling emotions regarding a topic that deals directly with human lives is not... Well, human. I'm certainly not going to apologize for this.

I did give rational arguments though... You could argue that they're rooted on my own moral views, sure, but that doesn't make them irrational.

In any case, wouldn't it be better to just respond with your own opposing views on the matter instead of attempting to belittle my views with that remark ? Isn't that what a rational person would do ?    

There is difference between feeling emotions and allowing them to overpower your mental faculties. You are of the latter variety.

"One innocent alone is too much for me." - this is really a testament to irrational thought. You basically suggest that it's okay for them to serve life sentences, but not be executed. Which is the more arduous life I wonder. A swift, painless execution or 50 years in a cell knowing you're innocent. Seems obvious to me...

"It's hypocritical" - It's a punishment for a crime. Nothing hypocritical about it. That's like arguing it's hypocritical for a theif to serve time in prison since they are inherently stealing money from taxpayers.

"It's useless because it doesn't do anything to repair the damage done" - there is no repair for murder. Why waste time, space, and money trying to attain it? 

"The way I see it, the purpose of punishment regarding the law should be to prevent further damage and rehabilitate the infractor as much as possible."

This is embarrassingly silly. Yep, let's just prevent further damage - so it's okay that Bernie Madoff stole millions from clients. Let's not make him repay it. Let's just make sure he doesn't do it again!

There is no rehabilitation for non-insane criminals. They don't need help. They are evil scum. 




Kasz216 said:
Dr.Grass said:
Lafiel said:
why would you choose a random comment in the bible like "eye for an eye" over an actual commandment "though shalt not kill" ?

I'm sorry, but from my perspective to argue in favor of capital punishment by citing the bible is nothing but folly


Not to mention that the original word for "kill" applies to all forms of killing, not just humans.

Forget about sensical discussions based on bibilical statements.

As i recall in the actual hebrew, in the commandments the most accurate translation is "though shall not murder" and specifically wasn't applied to all versions of killing.

 

Wikipedia but...

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

 

I don't know what that link is supposed to clarify. I've quoted this matter several times during public presentations.

The original Hebrew is lo tirtzach, which most certainly translates as "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not murder". Dr. Reuben Alcalay's Complete Hebrew/English Dictionary says that the word tirtzach, especially in classical Hebrew usage, refers to "any kind of killing" and not necessarily the murder of humans.

Straightforward as you like.

 



@dsgrue3

"One innocent alone is too much for me." - this is really a testament to irrational thought. You basically suggest that it's okay for them to serve life sentences, but not be executed.

This is a straw men... I never claimed such a thing. As long as the person is alive, the chance of being proven innocent exists. Once you kill him/her though, there's no turning back. That's the difference. And whether one is worst than the other is a matter of opinion... Clearly all those relatives that protest in favor of the criminal and ask for a pardon would disagree with you.

"It's hypocritical" - It's a punishment for a crime. Nothing hypocritical about it.

You didn't address anything about my argument here... It's hypocritical because you're directly contradicting your own values. Because you're condemning those who kill for money, revenge or making an example to infuse fear of "incorrect" behavior, yet go on and kill for the same reasons. Your thief example has nothing to do with it, as the decision to use taxpayers money and the way to do so doesn't come from the criminal, but from the goverment/society.

"It's useless because it doesn't do anything to repair the damage done" - there is no repair for murder. Why waste time, space, and money trying to attain it?

That's exactly my point... What's done is done. Killing these criminals won't bring the victims back, nor will it erase the damage done to those who lived through the consequences. What you can do is look at the future, and try to either rehabilitate said person, or keep him/her locked so there's no more harm done. Killing them as a way to "even things out" is just revenge, pure and simple.

"The way I see it, the purpose of punishment regarding the law should be to prevent further damage and rehabilitate the infractor as much as possible."

This is embarrassingly silly. Yep, let's just prevent further damage - so it's okay that Bernie Madoff stole millions from clients. Let's not make him repay it. Let's just make sure he doesn't do it again!

Fair enough... Let's just separate financial punishments from civil/physical ones here, and perhaps include the action of repaying the money as a way to prevent further damage (as those actions keep having consequences afterwards) and as part of the rehabilitation. Maybe doing some community service too, if he can't afford to return what he took. I'm not against all this, as I'm not against restricting freedom either, as long as there's an actual reason for it. A productive one, as I mentioned before.

There is no rehabilitation for non-insane criminals. They don't need help. They are evil scum.

Evil ? I don't see things in those absolute terms... And there's no rational argument here.



Capital punishment has some problems:

1. No takesies backsies. Lots of people have been convicted of murder and later exonerated as new evidence comes to light. A wrongly convicted murderer serving a life sentence might lose decades of freedom, but at least he might one day walk free once more, and enjoy a hefty pile of monetary compensation for the injustice committed against him. An expensive appeals process mitigates this problem somewhat, but also makes capital punishment more expensive than incarceration and is far from foolproof. 

So either you're killing innocent people out of a need for revenge or a misguided effort to deter crime (more on that soon), or you're spending way more money than you need to protect society from the worst criminals (and still killing a few innocent people).

If I should be wrongly convicted of something I didn't do, I'd rather not die from my misfortune. And I'd rather not spend more money than I have to on safety, either.

2. There's no solid evidence that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent of crime than life imprisonment. States with more executions tend to have higher murder rates than those without. People who commit capital offences generally either don't care about the consequences, or somehow think they'll escape them. They aren't very rational actors. 

Capital punishment isn't going to make me safer, so what good is it to me?

3. Capital crime perpetuates a cultural myth that problems can best be solved by finding the right person and killing him. I used to think this Wild West kind of mythology was why murder rates were so much higher in the US than other heavily armed developed countries like Canada and Switzerland. After recently seeing some data on how closely gun ownership correlates with gun deaths, I'm not so sure anymore, but I think it's worth keeping in mind. 

It's not such a leap of imagination that if the state thinks the worst members of society should be killed, individual (well-armed) citizens might be justified in using lethal force to be rid of people they think are most horrible.

Perpetuating a culture of where death is an acceptable solution to problems makes me less safe, especially if somebody were to decide that I'm a problem.

So there you have it. Capital punishment does nothing to enhance my personal safety. In fact, it puts it further in jeopardy by giving the state more circumstances to kill me and validating killing as a solution to problems. Furthermore, it consumes resources which would be better spent elsewhere for no measurable gains in security.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

@famousringo

Great post. You explained some of my points much better than me, as well as adding others I either forgot to mention or didn't consider.

By the way, I'd like to leave this here for anyone interested who hasn't seen it yet. It's the Penn and Teller's Bullshit show that dealt with this issue, arguing against it. It's somewhat old by now, but I think at least most of it still applies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wntitiiLotk  (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKSV9F_-VdU  (part 2)

I don't necessarily agree with every argument here or the way to express it, but I do of course agree in general. And I believe it can be a good way to get into the discussion and get a general idea of the arguments on both sides.