Mark6
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 6,261
How many murders are committed in prison? Particularly by convicts who are already serving life without parole (and thus have nothing to lose)?
The death penalty.
- Thread starter Cainkane1
- Start date
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
.
Considering what inmates have been known to do to each during riots, only a shiv would be a blessing!
Two Toed Sloth
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 94
Evidence?
Are you talking about people breaking out of prison, or being a danger to other inmates or something I've missed.
If it is people breaking out then I would say we need more secure prisons.
If it is the danger they pose to other inmates then what about solitary confinement. Or just lock them in a cell, throw in some food and water daily and don't let them out.
The "death penalty" costs very little - even with employee overtime and travel for execution team members, it wouldn't cost as much as a month in prison. This is a myth generated by anti-execution activists.
The cost is in anti-death penalty litigation and that is because the government is paying both sides of the tab AND, more importantly, allowing government funds and appointed attorneys for purposes that are not constitutionally required. An inmate sentenced to death is entitled to no more appeals than any other, but for some reason we voluntarily allow government funded attorneys to spend millions of dollars on a standardized list of delaying actions that often go on for 20+ years - apparently every inmate on our death row has (a) been represented by the most incompetent attorney in history (b) just discovered he was mentally retarded and/or mentally ill at the time of the crime (c) just realized that some evidence disposed of in 1980 might have had DNA on it, etc., etc.
Frequently convict the wrong guy? Got a statistic on what you'd call frequent? here, even the few inmates we've released aftert the "innocnece project" took up their case have included some that were "probably" not guilty (far from clearly innocent) and at least one who definitely did it, but his lengthy, post conviction, hand-written confession was not admissible.
Mark6
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 6,261
As the matter of fact, I do not believe that viciousness of murder, or age of victim, should have any bearing on deciding death penalty. Only likelyhood of murderer killing again. If anything, a child-only killer is not a candidate for death penalty, IMO. It's not like he will find any children in prison to kill.
No, it does not strike me as ironic.
We kill people for the same reasons we send thieves or spouse abusers to prison to (a) prevent them from committing the same crime again (prevention) (b) show potential criminals what will happen if they do it (deterrence) (c) basic fairness for victims - you should not be able to kill and get away with it (retribution).
An argument that we should not kill as punishment applies equally to every type of punishment.
Mark6
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 6,261
Mostly the latter.
I am actually okay with that. But the rare cases where US actually does that, it is controversial as cruel and unusual punishment
Two Toed Sloth
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 94
This seems misleading.
I wasn't saying it was bad because it is ironic (and I still think it is and can't understand how you stretch the meaning of irony to no longer encompass this ).
Why not just prevention, I do not think human life should be used as a deterrent and retribution is utterly pointless.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
In this case, it's not the wrong guy.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Research the details of this particular case, particulary brutal.
Two Toed Sloth
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 94
I have already read the article that was linked to, do you suggest further research?
I also am not basing my argument on the severity of the crime so it seems irrelevant.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
The Hartford Courant has done an excellent job covering this case in detail from the begining. Despite the death penalty sentence, it's more likely Hayes will die in prison instead.
http://www.courant.com/
Yes, I know. But while I may be wrong, I believe national polls show a majority favor the death penalty.
autumn1971
Illuminator
The USA is the only "civilized" country (in quotes because the inclusion of the US weakens the arguments for differentiating between civilized and uncivilized countries,) which still uses the death penalty. The US is also the country with the worst violent crime rate, by far, of all civilized nations. The death penalty, and the incredibly harsh treatment of criminals in the US Justice system, is evidence that these methods have failed to provide any deterrent at all. The only logical conclusion is that the opposite is true; given the vicious treatment of anyone deemed a criminal in the US, there isn't much difference between minor assaults and murder, and the deterrent effect is weakened.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Oh really? How about some evidence to back up this statement.
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
I'm not sure why you're asking me.
Two Toed Sloth
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 94
Yes they did a good job, nothing there that changes my mind though.
If it we set the standard that it is wrong to kill someone they we should abide by that standard ourselves, especially when there is the prison system already in place to protect the public.
You must be killed for the good of others is not a good enough reason.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Ummm... I don't think you can use the U.S. as an example of the ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. Not all states have the death penalty, and the states that do will often take years if not decades to actually execute someone.
Not that I think that the death penalty actually is a deterrent (I don't see convincing evidence either way), just that your argument is flawed.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
A little context here might be valuable...
Usually when a murderer takes a life, it is done for his own benefit with little or no forethought. When a person is executed, it is (in theory) done with certain legal mechanisms in place to prevent wrongful executions.
Not that I'm saying I'm for or against capital punishment, but labeling it 'murder' is no more accurate than calling a soldier involved in a war a 'murderer' if they kill people operating under valid orders.
Does it not strike you as ironic that the punishment for killing someone may be for someone else to kill you?[/quote]
Not any more ironic than the penalty for kidnapping/hostage taking is to arrest someone and keep them confined to a prison (which is pretty much what kidnapping was to begin with, isn't it?)
And not any more ironic than taking a person or company that has stolen and making them pay a fine.
Rolfe
Adult human female
It's not about whether this guy was definitely guilty or not, or how ghastly the crime was. It's about allowing the thin edge of the wedge that inevitably leads to the not-so-definitely-guilty being executed because they were stitched up.
And that's even if you don't subscribe to the position that it brutalises the state to stoop to kill any of its citizens, and it brutalises those tasked with carrying out the sentence.
Rolfe.
And that's even if you don't subscribe to the position that it brutalises the state to stoop to kill any of its citizens, and it brutalises those tasked with carrying out the sentence.
Rolfe.