What's new

My argument for the death penalty...

Since we probably agree philosophically (I did note that reserving capital punishment for a higher standard of guilt would alleviate some of my concerns), I'm not sure how that constitutes another viewpoint. I venture that our disagreements are more practical than philosophical.

My philosophical position has nothing to do with it, really, except to the extent I might be willing to "give" more for something I value than would someone who wants to destroy that thing in the first place.

1) It can't be ameliorated if the conviction is overturned.
This is true, as you have since qualified it, after execution has occurred. A true tragedy, if and when it happens, so now what?
 
Last edited:
One Brown not that I don't believe you but just out of curiosity is there a source you had in mind for comparing the costs of execution versus the costs of life imprisonment?
 
Yeah, Loki, this is where it says, for example:

"The costs [in the State of Kansas] of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case."

Other States claim higher costs, which raises the question of why should (must) they be higher?

Well aint, if bothered to actually click the link on the page you found that has exactly one statistic amongst thousands corroborating the fact that it is substantially cheaper to not to pursue the Death Penalty, you would have your answer. I'll give you a hint, though. The Kansas study is based on 7 whole cases.
 
Well aint, if bothered to actually click the link on the page you found that has exactly one statistic amongst thousands corroborating the fact that it is substantially cheaper to not to pursue the Death Penalty, you would have your answer. I'll give you a hint, though. The Kansas study is based on 7 whole cases.

Don't take offense, Biley, but I don't feel like "arguing" with you right now. Someone like Eric can discuss things rationally, and I actually prefer that sometimes, ya know?
 
Yet another claim you won't bother to present evidence for?

Heh, this is an absurd claim. Although it certainly happens (i.e., personal and political consideration result in non-prosecution), it does not happen in every case, and "can't" prosecute is NOT synomynous with "won't" prosecute in any event.

"Can" refers to ability. If you are not able to conduct a prosecution from personal and political considerations, you can't conduct it.

However, perhaps that's just my understanding of the word. I don't intend to argue that point.
 
Don't take offense, Biley, but I don't feel like "arguing" with you right now. Someone like Eric can discuss things rationally, and I actually prefer that sometimes, ya know?

Oh, you mean that debate you have going on about theoretical principles that have no basis in reality relative to the argument at hand so you can pretend that you're thinking on a higher level and not be wrong?
 
Granted, it does seem like Eric done hauled ***, and aint just composin one of his long-*** posts. But I really don't wanna muck up this thread no more at this point by engaging you in any "discussion." I prefer honest debate, at least sometimes.
 
This is true, as you have since qualified it, after execution has occurred. A true tragedy, if and when it happens, so now what?

Did you mean, as I qualified what other people said? I don't recall saying anything other than ameliorated.

Now, since the tragedy is greater, we enact better safegaurds to prevent.
 
Granted, it does seem like Eric done hauled ***, and aint just composin one of his long-*** posts. But I really don't wanna muck up this thread no more at this point by engaging you in any "discussion." I prefer honest debate, at least sometimes.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
 
Yet another claim you won't bother to present evidence for?

Jeez, Eric, cmon. You make a claim that is totally unsupported, and now you think I have some burden to disprove it? Do you honestly believe that no one has ever been criminally charged for obstruction of justice? What is your point, anyway? That the State is out to deliberately execute innocent people because they are (in your mind) absolutely immune from accountability? Don't go Write4u on me, now, eh?
 
Last edited:
Did you mean, as I qualified what other people said? I don't recall saying anything other than ameliorated.

Now, since the tragedy is greater, we enact better safegaurds to prevent.

The first point is trivial. Literally you said a "conviction" was irreversible, which is far from the case so long as the guy hasn't been executed yet--which qualification you made in a subsequent post.

As for the second point, what "better safeguards" do you have in mind? You mentioned a "higher standard of proof," is that it? What standard would you propose?
 
Jeez, Eric, cmon. You make a claim that is totally unsupported, and now you think I have some burden to disprove it? Do you honestly believe that no one has ever been criminally charged for obstruction of justice? What is your point, anyway? That the State is out to deliberately execute innocent people because they are (in your mind) absolutely immune from accountability? Do go Write4u on me, now, eh?

Using RL names in posts = **** just got real
 
Ahhh. ain't and onebrow taking their gloves off. The good old days are back again.

Anyone wanna bet on how many pages this thread goes?
 
The only relevant deterrence effect is the difference between life in prison or death.

Deterrence is only one consideration when assessing punishment, and even then there are two types to be considered, i.e., (1) general deterrence--designed to deter the public at large from committing the same acts done by the person bein punished, and (2) specific deterrence---designed to deter the particular individual from repeating his crimes. Whatever general deterrence effect the execution of Ted Bundy may have generated, one thing's for sure: Ole Teddy aint gunna be snuffin no more wimminz. Even murderers givin life can (and have) commited murder after bein sentenced--of prison officials, other prisoners, or civilians after escape. Wouldn't happen if ya smoked they sorry ***, because they would have been "specifically deterred," 100% guaranteed.
 
Last edited:
The only relevant deterrence effect is the difference between life in prison or death.

And there's another "deterrent" effect of the death penalty, which I brought up earlier in this thread (which was, of course, totally sidestepped by Kicky and Biley). If I recall correctly, even in Kansas the cost of prosecuting a capital crime where the death penalty is NOT sought is said to be $700,000 per trial.

I don't know about capital crimes in particular, but, for crime in general, probably 80-90% of all "convictions" are obtained by way of a guilty plea, which means there is no trial, and hence no "cost" of trial. Even a murderer who is "undeterred" at the time of committing murder can be "deterred" once his sorry *** has been caught. Many, if not most, of them don't want to risk the death penalty (when it can be legitimately threatened) and will exchange a guilty plea for a guarantee of "only" life without parole.

If it doesn't deter the crime itself, the death penalty can deter an expensive trial. Of course this threat is only credible if you (1) have a death penalty option, to begin with, and (2) fry a guy now and then to ensure they'll believe you're willing to enforce it, even if it does cost more. The ultimate savings in legal expenses in the long run probably far exceeds the cost of the (few) death penalty cases actually tried.

If the worst that could happen to a murderer was for him to receive a life sentence, he would never agree to plead guilty AND accept that penalty. He would have absolutely nuthin to gain, and everything to lose, if he by-passed his chance for a trial.

This really addresses the "more costly" argument more than a deterence argument, but they're related.
 
Last edited:
Of course, any deterrent effect is reduced the more you reduce the horror of it. Back in the old days of hangins, guillotine beheadins, breakin guys on the wheel, and such, executions were public, and generally drew big crowds. People would bring they little chillinz to watch. Part of it was just the spectacle and festival of it all, I spect, but there was another, educational, aspect to it.

Very few 5 and 6 year old kids who see a guy's head fallin into a basket and then watch his neck just keep gushin out blood fail to be strongly impressed. Sumthin they remember years later, even at times when they seriously wanna off some guy, ya know? Talkin for my own damn self, they's probably 3-4 homeys I woulda stuck a pitchfork in by the time I was age 12, except for I didn't wanna git strung up like them guys I had seen down at the town square.

Even back in the 30's and 40's before movies they would show newsreels (either before or after the cartoon, I forget now), showin some sorry soul bein fried in the electric chair, the top of his head smokin, his face expandin like a balloon, and alla that. Kids loved it, but it terrified them, too, of course.

Not now, though. No one is allowed to broadcast executions, not even if it's just stickin a needle in some guy's arm and watchin him quietly lay there, instead of dancin on the end of a rope for a good long spell. Young-uns can't be deterred by sumthin they can't even see, generally speakin. So, ya see, that why the murder rate just keeps climbin, they way I figure it.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the compliments.

Jeez, Eric, cmon. You make a claim that is totally unsupported,

There are a variety of websites that regularly point out cases where prosecutors have withheld exculpatory evidence, relied on testimony they knew to be suspect, etc., with no action being taken against them.

and now you think I have some burden to disprove it?

If you had two examples from the last ten years, I'll revoke what I am saying.

Do you honestly believe that no one has ever been criminally charged for obstruction of justice?

I am specifically discussing prosecutors who have not lied in court, but committed other breaches through negligence or disregard.

What is your point, anyway? That the State is out to deliberately execute innocent people because they are (in your mind) absolutely immune from accountability?

Certainly not. They are out to execute people they believe are guilty. The prosecutors don't think the evidence is exculpatory, because the defendant is guilty, so it can't be exonerate him. They don't need to follow up on another lead, because the defendant is guilty, so any new evidence would be a waste of time or money. The people that are elected and paid to vigorously prosecute defendants are also in charge of deciding which evidence is to be turned over to the defendants. Never attribute to malice what can ascribed to stupidity or belief.

Don't go Write4u on me, now, eh?

Now you're just being mean. :)
 
Back
Top