blzrul Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Story. Setting aside for a moment the "justice" aspect, some states are finally admitting that the rationale that execution is a better financial decision ("costs too much to keep them alive") is untrue. I have always thought that, with a few exceptions (Richard Speck, the pig, seemed to like jail), these guys would suffer much more being jailed forever without the possibility of parole. So from a "justice" perspective the idea of torturing them in this fashion is somewhat appealing. I have never, thank God, had anyone close to me be victim of a crime that carries the death penalty, so I can't know how they feel. I have seen families who would gladly administer the injection themselves, and others who've declined to support the death penalty. I really see an irony in state governments that previously held to execution as the proper recourse, now backpeddling because it is more expensive than stuffing these guys in a hole and forgetting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 There was a study about six or seven years ago that said it cost 3 times as much to execute versus incarcerate because of legal fees that are passed on to the taxpayer. I've always struggled with the death penalty thing but in the end I don't really like it because it gives the bureaucracy a whole lot of power. My biggest "pro" issue is the professional people who have to guard inmates who have no chance at freedom. What a rotten gig that has to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I dont get the DP in all cases, either. Take KSM, or any other these other Muslim pigs for example (the terrorists, calm down). They WANT to die. Its what they are striving for. Why give them what they want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Give a time limit on appeals. The bleeding hearts can spend their own money trying to find miniscule technicalities trying to get these obviously guilty scum off. The majority of the money is spent because we house these animals for 20 + years. As comedian Ron White said "My state has an express lane" (he's from Texas). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 My problem with the death penalty is there is now way you can convince me that there is not at leas on person on death row who is innocent. Our government has shown time and time again that they cannot get anything 100% right. The execution of just one innocent person (which I'm pretty sure has happened serveral times over the years) really bothers me. And now that this study shows it's cheaper to house them in prison for life than that settles it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 There was a study about six or seven years ago that said it cost 3 times as much to execute versus incarcerate because of legal fees that are passed on to the taxpayer. I've always struggled with the death penalty thing but in the end I don't really like it because it gives the bureaucracy a whole lot of power. My biggest "pro" issue is the professional people who have to guard inmates who have no chance at freedom. What a rotten gig that has to be. Has it really come to that, that you and aI agree on something? I have a friend who used to guard death-row inmates in Huntsville, TX. Of course at the rate they execute them down there it was/is, relatively speaking, a revolving door so at least he got to see many new faces. Anyway James thought it was a pretty tame gig, but then his previous job had been running around in the jungles in South America trying to bust up drug cartels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Has it really come to that, that you and aI agree on something? Nothing more than proof you're actually able to be correct on at least one thing. I have a friend who used to guard death-row inmates in Huntsville, TX. Of course at the rate they execute them down there it was/is, relatively speaking, a revolving door so at least he got to see many new faces. Anyway James thought it was a pretty tame gig, but then his previous job had been running around in the jungles in South America trying to bust up drug cartels. I was more referring to the "life without possibility of parole" people. Death row is supposedly pretty tame but the others "not so much". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Story. Setting aside for a moment the "justice" aspect, some states are finally admitting that the rationale that execution is a better financial decision ("costs too much to keep them alive") is untrue. I have always thought that, with a few exceptions (Richard Speck, the pig, seemed to like jail), these guys would suffer much more being jailed forever without the possibility of parole. So from a "justice" perspective the idea of torturing them in this fashion is somewhat appealing. I have never, thank God, had anyone close to me be victim of a crime that carries the death penalty, so I can't know how they feel. I have seen families who would gladly administer the injection themselves, and others who've declined to support the death penalty. I really see an irony in state governments that previously held to execution as the proper recourse, now backpeddling because it is more expensive than stuffing these guys in a hole and forgetting them. That's been long known but many people didn't want to admit it because it seems to go against common sense but it's always been true. Now that states are coming out and admitting it hopefully some of those people will now be convinced. If there was a 100% chance of knowing if somebody was guilty or innocent then I'd be all for it because then the money wouldn't be an issue but, it doesn't work like that. It's used a lot more against blacks than whites and IIRC that data is %age based. People say DNA makes it impossible to get it wrong but DNA isn't available in every case. Deano said he saw something once where a DNA lab tech said they would fake the findings if they were sure the guy did it. I also like the life imprisonment as being a worse answer for the convicted especially for child molesters and rapists. I saw a "Forensic Files" on a case where when they first presented the evidence against the guy convicted it looked like a slam dunk but it turned out he was innocent. He managed to prove his own innocent by hard work from the prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Since when is this news? Hasn't it always been common knowledge that application of the DP was more expensive? That's about the only decent argument I've ever heard against it. Hell, if it was cheaper, we should be zapping scores of them every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 My view on the death penalty hasn't changed, and probably won't: if a person is very fundamentally damaged to the point where there participation in any society is unreasonable, execute them. The guys who shoot three people knocking over a 7-11...give them life without parole. But people who are well and truly deranged, like Jeffery Dahmer or Charles Ng...execute them. Not as punishment or revenge, but as a simple admission of "Hey, man...you're just a little to sick and twisted for us to be comfortable keeping you around." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 My view on the death penalty hasn't changed, and probably won't: if a person is very fundamentally damaged to the point where there participation in any society is unreasonable, execute them. The guys who shoot three people knocking over a 7-11...give them life without parole. But people who are well and truly deranged, like Jeffery Dahmer or Charles Ng...execute them. Not as punishment or revenge, but as a simple admission of "Hey, man...you're just a little to sick and twisted for us to be comfortable keeping you around." Don't you think what happened to Dahmer is EXACTLY what he deserved? He didn't have any time to "get right", he didn't have a date to work against..he was terrified and probably suffered. Charles Ng isn't human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Charles Ng isn't human. Precisely my point. Or half of it. The other half you seem to have missed is that I don't consider it a question of punishment or retribution. I really don't care if Dahmer suffered or not, because I give "what he deserved" less consideration than I do the good of society. By way of analogy: you don't take revenge on a tumor, you just excise it. It doesn't "deserve" to be excised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 My problem with the death penalty is there is now way you can convince me that there is not at leas on person on death row who is innocent. Our government has shown time and time again that they cannot get anything 100% right. The execution of just one innocent person (which I'm pretty sure has happened serveral times over the years) really bothers me. And now that this study shows it's cheaper to house them in prison for life than that settles it for me. Exactly... I totally agree (after fielding through your very EiL like typos ). One question Cheffy? When did you become a liberal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 My view on the death penalty hasn't changed, and probably won't: if a person is very fundamentally damaged to the point where there participation in any society is unreasonable, execute them. The guys who shoot three people knocking over a 7-11...give them life without parole. But people who are well and truly deranged, like Jeffery Dahmer or Charles Ng...execute them. Not as punishment or revenge, but as a simple admission of "Hey, man...you're just a little to sick and twisted for us to be comfortable keeping you around." That is also a good point. You know what scares me... That "virus vault thingy" on my computer... Is there really any need for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Don't you think what happened to Dahmer is EXACTLY what he deserved? He didn't have any time to "get right", he didn't have a date to work against..he was terrified and probably suffered. Who the hell cares if he suffered. He lost his rights the moment he made others lose theirs. The only thing he didn't deserve was an extended trial on tax-payers money. I believe in a trial for him, but it was too long and drawn out. Should've been 2 days, close the doors, killed him the next day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Exactly... I totally agree (after fielding through your very EiL like typos ). One question Cheffy? When did you become a liberal? I'm a liberal because I thinkg the government will !@#$ everything up it puts its hands on? And regarding the typos, I just got a laptop at work and I hate typing with a laptop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Who the hell cares if he suffered. He lost his rights the moment he made others lose theirs. The only thing he didn't deserve was an extended trial on tax-payers money. I believe in a trial for him, but it was too long and drawn out. Should've been 2 days, close the doors, killed him the next day. Still living up to your screen name, I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I'm a liberal because I thinkg the government will !@#$ everything up it puts its hands on? And regarding the typos, I just got a laptop at work and I hate typing with a laptop. I am just pulling your leg... Most liberals oppose gov't intervention in deciding who lives and dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Still living up to your screen name, I see. I can't remember a post of his where he isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Precisely my point. Or half of it. The other half you seem to have missed is that I don't consider it a question of punishment or retribution. I really don't care if Dahmer suffered or not, because I give "what he deserved" less consideration than I do the good of society. By way of analogy: you don't take revenge on a tumor, you just excise it. It doesn't "deserve" to be excised. Well, perhaps this belongs in another thread but by the conventional "wisdom" of this board, human life (except Muslims, blacks, and liberals of course, and maybe gays too depending on who's posting) is sacred. Hence there must be SOME justification for taking it, whether punishment/retribution, justice, or deterrance of future crimes. I don't care if Dahmer suffered or not...well actually, I sorta hope he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts