My argument for the death penalty...
- Thread starter prodigy
- Start date
Even if I were to make extremely generous assumptions, such as that the additional cost of a single death row inmate is $100,000/yr and that your personal contribution to California income taxes is $10,000/yr, it comes down to you saying that a human life isn't worth 1.1 cents a year to you.
It's not hard to be holier than that.
I don't care who it is. 1 cent a year dude.
1 cent.
See what I mean, Shrimp?
So what's your argument, that the appeals process should go on indefinitely?
No. I only have to argue for the status quo to prove my point here. You said that you would be in favor of streamlining the appeals process for financial savings, hastening death for those convicted of capital crimes regardless of their actual innocence or guilt because the appeals process is shortened for everyone. That position literally accords the value of human life (insofar as you are willing to pay for it) to near zero.
Congrats, you're a monster.
Congrats, you're a monster.
A very short, unassuming, and girly looking monster.
Hopper
Banned
Yeah, Vinny. Sayin ya wanna streamline a cumbersome, inefficient, wasteful process is sayin ya just don't "value human life," especially those of vicious killers, caincha see?
Just so we're clear here. Viny could purchase the album "13 songs" by Fugazi from Amazon.com for $11.97. Alternatively he could choose to house at least 12 death row inmates for 100 years (the rest of their natural lives, presumably) for the same amount of money.
To Viny, 13 songs > 12 lives.
To Viny, 13 songs > 12 lives.
Then I misunderstood the appeals process. I thought it was too appeal the sentencing of death and NOT the guilty verdict. That said, do you think the appeals process should be indefinite? And if not, what would you consider an appropriate length of time?
Presumably you can appeal either depending on the stage of the proceeding and the exact mechanism. Certainly the work of Innocence Project-style organizations goes towards proving that the underlying crime was not committed.
Certainly the 2002 Supreme Court ruling that the mentally disabled couldn't be executed meant a great deal to those with mental deficiencies that resided on death row. I would personally find it horrendous if we executed those that were mentally disabled anyway because they had exhausted their set number of procedural challenges to the penalty prior to the 2002 ruling. Placing caps opens that door.
I don't agree with the death penalty at all, so the question is an odd one as it strikes me. The answer is that there is clearly a social benefit to the finality of judgments generally , but at the cost of an actual person's life? I mean, that strikes me as extreme. At a certain point we're saying we prefer a procedural expediency to a substantive action that can never be rectified if it turns out to have been in error.
Oh, and I'm not responding to Hopper because I have no response in case that's what anyone is assuming. He's been on the ignore list for the better part of a week or so and I honestly don't know what he's saying. I regard that as a public service to everyone who would otherwise be subjected to the result. And honestly, it's improved my enjoyment of the board greatly.
This is why you are considered a condescending prick by many. You could have easily corrected me and dispatched with the smarmy condescension. Guess some people just can't help themselves.
Innocence Project-style org. are fine with me and see no problem with that. Just one innocent person in jail is one too many. And, like you, I'm against Trout-like individuals being executed as well. So we agree on those points.
Do you not agree with the death penalty on the grounds of fairness, human life, religious convictions, all the above? I think knowing that would give me a better understanding of where you're coming from. And you still haven't answered my question. Do you think the appeals process should go on indefinitely? If not, what length of time would you accept?
Do you not agree with the death penalty on the grounds of fairness, human life, religious convictions, all the above? I think knowing that would give me a better understanding of where you're coming from. And you still haven't answered my question. Do you think the appeals process should go on indefinitely? If not, what length of time would you accept?
Innocence Project-style org. are fine with me and see no problem with that. Just one innocent person in jail is one too many. And, like you, I'm against Trout-like individuals being executed as well. So we agree on those points.
Do you not agree with the death penalty on the grounds of fairness, human life, religious convictions, all the above? I think knowing that would give me a better understanding of where you're coming from. And you still haven't answered my question. Do you think the appeals process should go on indefinitely? If not, what length of time would you accept?
Do you not agree with the death penalty on the grounds of fairness, human life, religious convictions, all the above? I think knowing that would give me a better understanding of where you're coming from. And you still haven't answered my question. Do you think the appeals process should go on indefinitely? If not, what length of time would you accept?
Hopper
Banned
Kicky thinks a 100 year appeal process might be too short, because then a death sentence might actually be carried out. Fair enough, if that's your belief. But what does it have to do the the efficiency of the legal system or disregard for the constitution? Of course, if you don't share his view on that, you're simply a "monster."
But, naturally, he aint on no high horse, er nuthin. He just knowz a barbaric cretin when he sees one, that's all. They aint hard to spot--anyone who doesn't agree with him fits the bill, eh?
Those people are right. I plead guilty.
I was annoyed because I dealt with this exact issue in an earlier post in this thread.
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/323-Execution-by-Firing-Squad?p=8018&viewfull=1#post8018
Hopper
Banned
Marcus, a while back, I expressed my misguided opinion that Kicky might have changed his posting style. He denied it.
I gotta fess up: He wuz right, and I wuz wrong.
I think what we disagree on, though, is the procedural implication of those points. "Streamlining" the judicial appeals process for those on death row (which is a euphamism for eliminating part of the appeals process) conflicts with the positive effects of these programs or court rulings by cutting short the amount of time they have to operate. This will (if it has not already, and it probably has) inevitably lead to the execution of someone who was in fact innocent or the execution of one who shouldn't be executed on Eighth Amendment grounds. Consequently, I see arguments for streamlining the process in the name of financial savings as an argument for killing people to save money. When the cost of keeping those people alive is really incredibly minimal, that rings as barbaric.
To the extent that we're discussing the appeals process, this is irrelevant. I was merely bringing it up because it affects my subjective answer to the question of whether the appeals process should be indefinite. One could clearly interpret opposition to the death penalty as an advocation of an indefinite appeals process because as long as the appeals process continues the person is not put to death.
I'm sorry, I thought I had answered your question. I oppose any caps on the number of appeals proceedings in capital cases because it will inevitably lead to wrongful deaths. I am more comfortable with finality in instances where lives are not at stake and the later discovery of errors can at least be compensated in some way (even if cash is hardly real compensation).
God forbid, if and when you have kids, you ever have to repeat yourself. You'll make a wonderful dad.
If your argument is that you want me to treat you like an eight-year-old going forward, I'll happily oblige.
I assumed you wanted to be treated like an adult.
In any event, I've conceded that I'm a prick. So you win that one.