The Political Party

[Bowe]

---

Stratfan wrote:

I have a great idea to "fix" the problem of innocent people being executed. If someone is caught red-handed in the act of **bleep**, murder, etc. then execution will take place within 24 hours after a guilty verdict. If a **bleep** or murderer is convicted by witness testimony or circumstantial evidence, then there is the possibility that they are innocent and they would not be immediately executed, and would have a chance to prove their innocence.

Here's the best part: I have a plan to save a LOT of tax dollars by greatly reducing the prison population. Repeat violent offenders make up a large percentage of state and federal inmates. These repeat offenders commit violent crimes, go to jail, get out, commit violent crimes, go to jail, get out, over and over. For most of them, there is no way that they will ever become useful members of society. Why should the government be wasting our tax dollars housing these scumbags in prison? I say that if a violent offender gets arrested for a third violent offense, then he should immediately be executed after a guilty verdict. My reasoning is that if a criminal repeatedly harms other people every time he's on the street, then there is no possible way he should EVER be let back in society. Taxpayers should not have to pay for him to sit in jail; that money would be better spent on education, health care, or whatever. So, let's execute these monsters. The fact that they've committed violent crimes over and over again is proof that they are not innocent, so there's no need to worry that an innocent man may be executed.

This will also save tax dollars in other ways. I've worked in a prison for a long time, and these inmates usually make more babies every time that they get back out on the street. Who supports these babies? We do!

---

who decides if a criminal is definatly guilty, or has a chance of being innocent?

how much of a chance of being innocent is required to put off the 24 hour execution?

[Microtilt]

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

I used to support it.

Honestly though, I'm not sure the justice system has reached or ever will reach the point where it should be handing down sentences of such permanence.

Too many people have been found to be innocent years after being convicted.

---

This is how I feel about it, too.  Some criminals certainly deserve to die, but allowing a justice system that has been proven to be fallible (and sometimes outright corrupt) to put people to death is just not acceptable to me.

---

This.

[mauser]

---

Bowe wrote:

I imagine that a lot of people who commit murder think that what they did was justified for whatever reason.  

and is putting an innocent person to death because you got the wrong guy justified?

---

That's why we have juries.

The idea that we could be putting an innocent person to death is why I don't support the death penalty.

[Booker]

I think that some people deserve to die.

I do not think we should be giving our government the power to decide who that is. Nor should it be given to juries, or our justice system.

[Invisible Hand]

I oppose capital punishment for three reasons.

1) The State should not be given the ultimate power to be the arbiter of life and death.

2) Our justice system is run by humans, and humans are flawed.  Innocent people get executed.  This is the ultimate injustice.

3) Capital punishment erodes the murder taboo.  The State is essentially giving the population mixed messages about right and wrong.  It is essentially saying that sometimes it is ok to kill.

[Stratfan]

Okay, I'll modify it to say that "all" murderers, etc. should be given the chance to prove their innocence. Immediate execution would be for REPEAT violent offenders. ANYONE can make a mistake and go to jail, or be in the wrong place at the wrong time and be falsely convicted. Stupid people might do this twice. However, violent career criminals do this over and over. Even if they were actually innocent of one of their crimes, they're still guilty overall by the simple fact that they can't walk the streets without committing violent crimes. These are the people who should not be allowed to live and waste our tax dollars.   

[Microtilt]

---

Stratfan wrote:

Okay, I'll modify it to say that "all" murderers, etc. should be given the chance to prove their innocence. Immediate execution would be for REPEAT violent offenders. ANYONE can make a mistake and go to jail, or be in the wrong place at the wrong time and be falsely convicted. Stupid people might do this twice. However, violent career criminals do this over and over. Even if they were actually innocent of one of their crimes, they're still guilty overall by the simple fact that they can't walk the streets without committing violent crimes. These are the people who should not be allowed to live and waste our tax dollars.   

---

I think you may be a bit confused as to how the justice system works, regardless if the death penalty applies or not.

You see, in criminal cases, there is a presumption of innocence.  The burden of proof falls upon the prosecution.  There is no stipulation that anyone must prove their innocence.  Do you  really want to live under that kind of axe?

[mdwagner73]

---

Stratfan wrote:

I have a great idea to "fix" the problem of innocent people being executed. If someone is caught red-handed in the act of **bleep**, murder, etc. then execution will take place within 24 hours after a guilty verdict. If a **bleep** or murderer is convicted by witness testimony or circumstantial evidence, then there is the possibility that they are innocent and they would not be immediately executed, and would have a chance to prove their innocence.

Here's the best part: I have a plan to save a LOT of tax dollars by greatly reducing the prison population. Repeat violent offenders make up a large percentage of state and federal inmates. These repeat offenders commit violent crimes, go to jail, get out, commit violent crimes, go to jail, get out, over and over. For most of them, there is no way that they will ever become useful members of society. Why should the government be wasting our tax dollars housing these scumbags in prison? I say that if a violent offender gets arrested for a third violent offense, then he should immediately be executed after a guilty verdict. My reasoning is that if a criminal repeatedly harms other people every time he's on the street, then there is no possible way he should EVER be let back in society. Taxpayers should not have to pay for him to sit in jail; that money would be better spent on education, health care, or whatever. So, let's execute these monsters. The fact that they've committed violent crimes over and over again is proof that they are not innocent, so there's no need to worry that an innocent man may be executed.

This will also save tax dollars in other ways. I've worked in a prison for a long time, and these inmates usually make more babies every time that they get back out on the street. Who supports these babies? We do!

---

As long as there is a provision allowing the justice system to put people to death, no matter what restrictions you place on it, there is the risk of abuse by corrupt individuals.  No matter what proposition you make to eliminate the risk of errors, you cannot eliminate the risk of abuse.  The only solution is to eliminate the provision. 

[GuitarNoobie]

---

Hoddy wrote:

I support the death penalty when it's warranted.

---

it's ok for you...

you are a confirmed idiot :thu:

[GuitarNoobie]

---

infragreen wrote:

It's just too bad my state doesn't have it. When a person is this fukkt up in the head, the only good choice is to put them down.

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/1005495/391/St-Paul-man-charged-with-shooting-dismembering-wife

---

i bet you would feel different if you had a relative that was wrongfully charged, convicted and executed...

i do understand the rights inability to think past their own selfish views but you should try.  it's enlightening... 

[guido61]

I don't oppose capital punishment in theory. If somebody commits a particularly henious crime, I have no moral problem with putting them to death as punishment.

As a practical matter, however, the death penalty is ridiculously expensive and inefficient. As presently used in the US it typically costs more to try a person and sentence them to death than it does to house them in prison for life. And even then, we often get it wrong.

And sentencing innocent people to death shouldn't even be an option. So until we can figure out a way to do it better and more cost-effectively, I really don't see the point of it.

[jackcheez]

---

infragreen wrote:

---

Marko wrote:

Edit: they **Bleeped** out r a p e ?

---

I bet we have OJ to thank for that.

---

Yeah, because this forum is so well spoken !

[Stratfan]

I don't think that anyone gets the point I'm trying to make! Yes, sometimes innocent people are convicted falsely. My immediate use of capital punishment would ONLY be for the career criminals who are constantly being arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for violent acts against others. I've seen many of these dirtbags; they can't stay on the streets for more than a few months (or weeks) without robbing/hurting someone and going right back to jail. Why should we allow them to siphon off tax dollars that could be put to better use? These "people" are not human... they're worse than rabid animals. If you can't live peacefully in society, then you shouldn't be allowed to remain in society. This is why we imprison criminals. But, there has to come a point where imprisoning the same offenders over and over again is a complete waste of time and resources, and we need to get rid of these vermin permanently. 

And yes, I do understand how the justice system works (and doesn't work)... up close and personal.  

[Spike Li]

---

Invisible Hand wrote:

I oppose capital punishment for three reasons.

1) The State should not be given the ultimate power to be the arbiter of life and death.

2) Our justice system is run by humans, and humans are flawed.  Innocent people get executed.  This is the ultimate injustice.

3) Capital punishment erodes the murder taboo.  The State is essentially giving the population mixed messages about right and wrong.  It is essentially saying that sometimes it is ok to kill.

---

Excellent points, especially number 3.  It devalues human life, and in a society where violence is so rampant, this doesnt help at all...

[onelife]

---

An Edmonton man who spent eight years in prison for sexually assaulting his nine-year-old stepson has been acquitted after the boy said that his biological father forced him to lie.The man, who cannot be named under a publication ban, was convicted in 1995 and served his entire prison sentence. He was denied parole because he refused to admit to the offence.

It's a good thing Alberta (the Texas of Canada) does not use capital punishment for these or any other types of crime.

I understand where the OP is coming from in this thread but I do not think that we have the right to take another persons life even if we feel justified at the time.

link to story

[yumpy]

---

guido61 wrote:

I don't oppose capital punishment in theory. If somebody commits a particularly henious crime, I have no moral problem with putting them to death as punishment.

As a practical matter, however, the death penalty is ridiculously expensive and inefficient. As presently used in the US it typically costs more to try a person and sentence them to death than it does to house them in prison for life. And even then, we often get it wrong.

And sentencing innocent people to death shouldn't even be an option. So until we can figure out a way to do it better and more cost-effectively, I really don't see the point of it.

---

what's expensive about it, is years of appeals in court and death row. an average of 20 yrs. 

i say, 1 year to appeal and sort it out. then by, gone, c ya. the chair, firing squad, injection, gillotine or 10 mins with the vic's family, whatever. 

 cheap.

[guido61]

---

yumpy wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

I don't oppose capital punishment in theory. If somebody commits a particularly henious crime, I have no moral problem with putting them to death as punishment.

As a practical matter, however, the death penalty is ridiculously expensive and inefficient. As presently used in the US it typically costs more to try a person and sentence them to death than it does to house them in prison for life. And even then, we often get it wrong.

And sentencing innocent people to death shouldn't even be an option. So until we can figure out a way to do it better and more cost-effectively, I really don't see the point of it.

---

what's expensive about it, is years of appeals in court and death row. an average of 20 yrs. 

---

No, that isn't what is expensive about it.  What's expensive about it is that it costs more to try and sentence a person to death than it does to sentence them to life in prison and keep them there for life even BEFORE that first mandatory appeal.

The reasons are several:  the higher burden of proof for most DP cases.  In places like California, you need to have committed two crimes in order to be eligible for the DP.  That means that both crimes have to be tried and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  With a standard case, maybe you don't bother with both elements. 

It's also harder to find people who want to sit on a jury in a DP case.  That makes that process longer.  And usually better attorneys need to be hired for the public defense.  (don't want to risk losing on appeal because the lawyer was an idiot!)  

Also, the trials take longer.  Because there's often that need to try and prove it to an extra degree than you would otherwise.  And often the trials are in two phases.  They'll sit a complete different jury for the sentencing phase and present different evidence.

All in all, it's a MUCH more expensive process.  And even with all that we STILL f' it up sometimes and convict innocent people to death row only to find out later we have to release them.   And should we execute them, then there's no turning back obviously.

So if somebody can come up with a cheaper way to do it and we can be sure we're not convicting the wrong people?  Sure, I'd be for it.  I just can't think of what it might be.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-state-budgets/

[The Badger]

---

GuitarNoobie wrote:

---

Hoddy wrote:

I support the death penalty when it's warranted.

---

it's ok for you...

you are a confirmed idiot :thu:

---

Be nice to Hoddy. He actually got to sentence somebody to death for committing a very nasty raype-murder. No word on whether he enjoyed it or not.

[yumpy]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

yumpy wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

I don't oppose capital punishment in theory. If somebody commits a particularly henious crime, I have no moral problem with putting them to death as punishment.

As a practical matter, however, the death penalty is ridiculously expensive and inefficient. As presently used in the US it typically costs more to try a person and sentence them to death than it does to house them in prison for life. And even then, we often get it wrong.

And sentencing innocent people to death shouldn't even be an option. So until we can figure out a way to do it better and more cost-effectively, I really don't see the point of it.

---

what's expensive about it, is years of appeals in court and death row. an average of 20 yrs. 

---

No, that isn't what is expensive about it.  What's expensive about it is that it costs more to try and sentence a person to death than it does to sentence them to life in prison and keep them there for life even BEFORE that first mandatory appeal.

The reasons are several:  the higher burden of proof for most DP cases.  In places like California, you need to have committed two crimes in order to be eligible for the DP.  That means that both crimes have to be tried and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  With a standard case, maybe you don't bother with both elements. 

It's also harder to find people who want to sit on a jury in a DP case.  That makes that process longer.  And usually better attorneys need to be hired for the public defense.  (don't want to risk losing on appeal because the lawyer was an idiot!)  

Also, the trials take longer.  Because there's often that need to try and prove it to an extra degree than you would otherwise.  And often the trials are in two phases.  They'll sit a complete different jury for the sentencing phase and present different evidence.

All in all, it's a MUCH more expensive process.  And even with all that we STILL f' it up sometimes and convict innocent people to death row only to find out later we have to release them.   And should we execute them, then there's no turning back obviously.

So if somebody can come up with a cheaper way to do it and we can be sure we're not convicting the wrong people?  Sure, I'd be for it.  I just can't think of what it might be.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-state-budgets/

---

that's what i said. 

1 appeal. if you're sentanced to life, what the putz does that tell you? 

execution is a life sentance. only shorter. 

[The Badger]

I'm all for Capital Punishment. For example, I think everyone in Congress should be taken out and spanked for doing such an abysmal job.

But seriously...

---

Stratfan wrote:

I don't think that anyone gets the point I'm trying to make! Yes, sometimes innocent people are convicted falsely. My immediate use of capital punishment would ONLY be for the career criminals who are constantly being arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for violent acts against others. I've seen many of these dirtbags; they can't stay on the streets for more than a few months (or weeks) without robbing/hurting someone and going right back to jail. Why should we allow them to siphon off tax dollars that could be put to better use? These "people" are not human... they're worse than rabid animals. If you can't live peacefully in society, then you shouldn't be allowed to remain in society. This is why we imprison criminals. But, there has to come a point where imprisoning the same offenders over and over again is a complete waste of time and resources, and we need to get rid of these vermin permanently. 

And yes, I do understand how the justice system works (and doesn't work)... up close and personal.  

---

For the most part, I disagree with capital punishment for the reasons stated in other posts: It is possible an innocent person might be executed, for one thing. For another, it is possible that a criminal -- even one who commits murder -- could be reformed, at least to the point of not being a danger to society anymore. Then there is the psychological torture of knowing that some day you are going to run out of appeals, and a group of armed men are going to take you to a small room, strap you down and kill you. No matter how contrite you are, or accepting of your fate, that kind of thing has got to be stressful.

However, there are a select few mad dogs, like white supremacists and serial killers, who have no respect for human life. They take joy in brutalizing and murdering people for the smallest of reasons. And once in prison, they can kill with near impunity because they're already in prison for life. What's a few more deaths on top of that? Those few are the ones who should be euthanized -- killed to put them out of our misery.