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

Forums - General Discussion - Death Penalty: Does your country have it?

Tagged games:

 

Death penalty?

Yes! 39 21.08%
 
No. 146 78.92%
 
Total:185
scrapking said:

Dunban67 said:

I question your data-   i do not think it is close to acuarate (re the types of crimes that are sentanced to death

Re public hanging - it would very much be a deterent-  someone who wants notatriety shoots up a public place or something that takes innocent lives or some other high profile, top of the news act- -  hanging in the wind, dead is something that would show a high majority of violent criminals that they should think twice before pulling the trigger-  most or at least a high % of the  murders in the US are seneless and avoidable even in the context of crime, passion etc-   In other wordss, even in the act of a crime, the mrder that transpired served no actual pupose-   or they are gang/drug related  or for "dissing" someone -  It is amazing how little some people will kill another for-  

If not crimes of desperation or passion, what kinds of things do you think tend to encourage the prosecutors to seek the death penalty?  Jaywalking?  Overfishing?  *confused*

Psychologists and criminologists don't agree with you about deterrence:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf

"A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide.  Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.  

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”

The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology.  Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research."

you must not have read my original post in this thread-  i said the death penalty as it is currently administered is not much of a deterent but it does give prosecutors bargaining leverage

I also said public hanging would be a deterent which is not what the study/survey you cited is talking about - it is talking about The death penalty- as it is administered now



Around the Network
scrapking said:
Azuren said:
I live in the US, specifically in Texas. Unsurprisingly, I support my country's use of the death penalty. There are some out there who are just not worth trying to save (like the guy who repeatedly slammed a 5 month old infant against the sidewalk... Fuck 65 years, just kill him).

Keeping a person incarcerated is expensive, and I'd rather not have my tax dollars feed and clothe monsters that I would personally pass the death sentence on.

I don't find it necessarily unsurprising that you support the death penalty.  I live in British Columbia, but don't believe in cutting down old growth forests, not everyone who lives in Washington State wears socks and sandals, not everyone who lives in Alberta believes in destroying their province by exploiting the oil sands, etc.  The world is full of amazing diversity.  :)

Keeping a person incarcerated is cheap compared to keeping someone in a death row institution.  The last time I saw statistics, California paid an average of $308 million for every person they murdered on death row (taking death row costs divided by the number of people actually murdered).  The death row institutions are vastly more expensive than other prisons, the legal costs are far more expensive as a free and fair society generally doesn't want to murder its citizens without letting them exhaust all legal means to protest their innocence, etc.  Death row is about a public's desire for vengeance, not against responsible management of public finances.  Unless you want a guilty-until-proven-innocent kangaroo court, a system where some people are ultimately murdered on behalf of the public will always cost more than locking people up and throwing away the key.

Then there are the postumous pardons as new evidence comes to light, which has been common in recent years with new DNA evidence.  No system of murdering people is perfect, to murder anyone you have to accept that some innocent people will be murdered.  I don't accept that.

Finally, whatever happened to two wrongs don't make a right?  One of the first lessons most of us learn as children.  I'm often amazed that those who believe "Thou shalt not kill" seem to not apply it to the government murdering on their behalf.  It's not "Thous shalt not kill...  unless they do something you strongly disagree with, and then it's cool."

EDIT TO ADD:  If anything, the fact that the death penalty is ruinously bad for public finances, I might expect someone from Texas to be deeply concerned about that.  Texas' reputation is both fiscal conservative (save money), and socially conservative (which is where "thou shalt not kill" should be kicking in).  I know that a lot of Texans seem to support the death penalty, but that seems wildly anachronistic to their other beliefs.  Perhaps there isn't a lot of education in Texas as to the true nature of the death penalty.  *shrug*

1. Don't compare Texas finance to Californian finance. Californians are total numbskulls with their money, that's why they're all moving to Texas (go home, by the way, Californians; you're ruining this state, too). As far as keeping prisoners sentenced to death, Texas actually attempted (may have succeeded, I dunno) to pass a law stating that if there are more than three credible eye witnesses (cops, lawyers, teachers, etc) then your ass is grass. Texas doesn't want to spend money on the scum of society, and fast-tracking monsters to a lethal injection would save enough money in the long run to give 2 people full time jobs for life at 30K a year and still save money.

 

2. No one is talking about a death sentence for people where there is reasonable doubt. Heavy sentences are reserved for those, death is for those who are not worth keeping. So before you attempt to bring it up again, no one is wanting to sentence someone to death unless it was practically recorded. 

 

3. You also seem to be under the impression that this is simply a form of punishment. This is a removal of dangerous elements. For example, let's say we catch a terrorist after he kills 20 people. Throughout trial, he claims he is justified and admits to the murders. If you, for a second, think he deserves anything less than an immediate death sentence, then I call your reasoning into question. If he goes to jail for life, there's still a possibility he could get out. And what would he do if he did? Buy puppies for an orphanage, or kill more people? 



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Frank_kc said:
Yes, we do have it and I am all for it. It makes a criminal think a thousand time before committing a crime. It is a mean to reduce crime and its not about being civilized or not especially if you lost a loved one in a crime with basically no intentions but to steal a few bucks.

Then why do U.S. States with the death penalty not have dramatically lower violent crime rates than those who don't have it?  The data, not to mention the opinion of the overwhelming majority of criminologists, do not agree with your opinion.

Curious...  are you aware that states that have the death penalty spend millions *per inmate* and that this costs way more than it does to just lock someone up and throw away the key?  Are you OK with spending millions on expensive institutions and extra legal wrangling?  It's ruinous to public finances, and couldn't be any other way if you want to be reasonably sure that not too many innocent people will be put to death by the government (some always will, but it's about keeping the numbers down).  Any fiscal conservative should be against capital punishment.



scrapking said:
Frank_kc said:
Yes, we do have it and I am all for it. It makes a criminal think a thousand time before committing a crime. It is a mean to reduce crime and its not about being civilized or not especially if you lost a loved one in a crime with basically no intentions but to steal a few bucks.

Then why do U.S. States with the death penalty not have dramatically lower violent crime rates than those who don't have it?  The data, not to mention the opinion of the overwhelming majority of criminologists, do not agree with your opinion.

Curious...  are you aware that states that have the death penalty spend millions *per inmate* and that this costs way more than it does to just lock someone up and throw away the key?  Are you OK with spending millions on expensive institutions and extra legal wrangling?  It's ruinous to public finances, and couldn't be any other way if you want to be reasonably sure that not too many innocent people will be put to death by the government (some always will, but it's about keeping the numbers down).  Any fiscal conservative should be against capital punishment.

 

I can easily answer your point, it is simply not effective in USA because they wait for a long time before executing convicted murders. Some of them could stay in prison for 25 years before they decide to execute him or her.



Not only does my country have the death penalty , they never use it. I mean, they do use it but it's like a pending in wait scenario.



Lube Me Up

Around the Network
scrapking said:

I don't find it necessarily unsurprising that you support the death penalty.  I live in British Columbia, but don't believe in cutting down old growth forests, not everyone who lives in Washington State wears socks and sandals, not everyone who lives in Alberta believes in destroying their province by exploiting the oil sands, etc.  The world is full of amazing diversity.  :)

Keeping a person incarcerated is cheap compared to keeping someone in a death row institution.  The last time I saw statistics, California paid an average of $308 million for every person they murdered on death row (taking death row costs divided by the number of people actually murdered).  The death row institutions are vastly more expensive than other prisons, the legal costs are far more expensive as a free and fair society generally doesn't want to murder its citizens without letting them exhaust all legal means to protest their innocence, etc.  Death row is about a public's desire for vengeance, not against responsible management of public finances.  Unless you want a guilty-until-proven-innocent kangaroo court, a system where some people are ultimately murdered on behalf of the public will always cost more than locking people up and throwing away the key.

Then there are the postumous pardons as new evidence comes to light, which has been common in recent years with new DNA evidence.  No system of murdering people is perfect, to murder anyone you have to accept that some innocent people will be murdered.  I don't accept that.

Finally, whatever happened to two wrongs don't make a right?  One of the first lessons most of us learn as children.  I'm often amazed that those who believe "Thou shalt not kill" seem to not apply it to the government murdering on their behalf.  It's not "Thous shalt not kill...  unless they do something you strongly disagree with, and then it's cool."

EDIT TO ADD:  If anything, the fact that the death penalty is ruinously bad for public finances, I might expect someone from Texas to be deeply concerned about that.  Texas' reputation is both fiscal conservative (save money), and socially conservative (which is where "thou shalt not kill" should be kicking in).  I know that a lot of Texans seem to support the death penalty, but that seems wildly anachronistic to their other beliefs.  Perhaps there isn't a lot of education in Texas as to the true nature of the death penalty.  *shrug*

What you say is correct, but it is much more a splendid example of absurdely high and inefficient public spending than a reason against death sentence. I mean, if this cost is real... this is unreal !

Also, it's not that much about spending (if reasonable). I mean, if someone steal a car and get 6 months of jail, I'm pretty sure it costs a lot more to put the guy in jail, than to forgive him. But the thing it is not just about this guy, it is about deciding if we can't live in a society where it's legal to steal a car (in term of morale and cost). Especially for murder, we would not cut the cost by halving the duration.

Last but not least, I don't really think there is a really morale inconsistency in death sentence. Thou shalt not kill... for greed, jealousy, racism, angst, hate, etc. But thou shalt get killed after a proper trial if you kill for these reasons. I find it morally acceptable, frankly, and I'm not an uneducated texan. Even Europe have exceptions for army, in certain circumstances for police and self-defense, suicide, and perhaps someday for euthanasia. But still, I'm moderatly in favor of death sentence, I believe that there is nothing wrong about being against it, I would not fight for it, but I would even less fight against it.



McDonaldsGuy said:

Murdering is a personal choice. If someone wants to murder someone instead of not murdering then who are you to criticize that?

When you commit a murder, you accept the consequences you will face. If I rob a bank, I accept I may be caught and put into prison.

And no, the death penalty is not "frequently administrated to innocent people." No innocent person has ever been killed by the death penalty - and with DNA and forensic evidence, it's highly unlikely to happen.

On the other hand, 25% of euthanasia cases in the Netherlands and Belgium do not have proper consent forms. In Brazil, a doctor euthanized 300 people to make "way for more beds." 300 innocent people dead due to euthanasia just to make way for more beds. THAT is barbaric, my friend. Not mercifully killing a guy who raped and murdered a 14 year old girl.

Your pulling numbers out of thin air. We've had one recent case (in the past year) of an euthanesia procedure wrongfully enacted. That is punishable, for both the medic as the consent givers.

I must say it's slightly amusing to find a purely utilitarian thinker in this day and age, to think only of consequence. Throw in the fact that you pretend to know in every how people think when they commit crimes.



Frank_kc said:

 

I can easily answer your point, it is simply not effective in USA because they wait for a long time before executing convicted murders. Some of them could stay in prison for 25 years before they decide to execute him or her.

And even then they sometimes manage to execute someone wrongfully.



Azuren said:

 1. Don't compare Texas finance to Californian finance. Californians are total numbskulls with their money, that's why they're all moving to Texas (go home, by the way, Californians; you're ruining this state, too). As far as keeping prisoners sentenced to death, Texas actually attempted (may have succeeded, I dunno) to pass a law stating that if there are more than three credible eye witnesses (cops, lawyers, teachers, etc) then your ass is grass. Texas doesn't want to spend money on the scum of society, and fast-tracking monsters to a lethal injection would save enough money in the long run to give 2 people full time jobs for life at 30K a year and still save money.

 

2. No one is talking about a death sentence for people where there is reasonable doubt. Heavy sentences are reserved for those, death is for those who are not worth keeping. So before you attempt to bring it up again, no one is wanting to sentence someone to death unless it was practically recorded. 

 

3. You also seem to be under the impression that this is simply a form of punishment. This is a removal of dangerous elements. For example, let's say we catch a terrorist after he kills 20 people. Throughout trial, he claims he is justified and admits to the murders. If you, for a second, think he deserves anything less than an immediate death sentence, then I call your reasoning into question. If he goes to jail for life, there's still a possibility he could get out. And what would he do if he did? Buy puppies for an orphanage, or kill more people? 

All of the above seems predicated on the idea that there's such a thing as a perfect system that can perfectly and unfailingly come up with unquestioned guilt.  The number of people who have been exonerated after their death coontinues to grow.

I'm not a believer that mudering a criminal does a better job of removing the dangerous element than locking them up and throwing away the key.  The number of dangerous prisoners who escape high security facilities is very small.  And the people on death row are more desperate and a greater risk to prison staff (and the general public if they do manage to escape).

My feelings on the death penalty are a mix of practical (in no jurisdiction is it cheaper), and ethical (if it's wrong to murder, it's wrong to murder the murderer...  two wrongs don't make a right, and all that).  And you question my judgement for that?  Cool story, bro.



Dunban67 said:

you must not have read my original post in this thread-  i said the death penalty as it is currently administered is not much of a deterent but it does give prosecutors bargaining leverage

I also said public hanging would be a deterent which is not what the study/survey you cited is talking about - it is talking about The death penalty- as it is administered now

Incorrect assumption is incorrect.  I absolutely did read your initial message.  I simply disagree with it, for previously stated reasons (such as my belief that some wrong-in-the-head people might find the public notoriety of a public hanging to be appealing, rather than a deterrent).