-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Last Meals Of Innocent Men
- Thread starter Joel Was Right
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Now, provide me with an argument as to the societal benefit of keeping the Colorado shooter alive. An argument that is not a judgement call based on personal beliefs or morals.
Because it represents the actions of a justice system designed to protect the public safety in the most humane way possible. Putting these people to death is a hand-out to those calling for revenge or punitive justice, i.e., he is a bad man make him hurt.
The goal of the justice system should be to improve the public safety. Our system almost seems to encourage recidivism.
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.
No doubt. Watched a doco about memory and how easy it can be manipulated, shit was scary.
Keeping him alive provides government funds into a prison which employs multiple people at higher than minimum wage.
What you're saying is you want to kill murderers and kill American jobs.
Tsk tsk I say.
Best post in the thread.
Because it represents the actions of a justice system designed to protect the public safety in the most humane way possible. Putting these people to death is a hand-out to those calling for revenge or punitive justice, i.e., he is a bad man make him hurt.
The goal of the justice system should be to improve the public safety. Our system almost seems to encourage recidivism.
The public safety is not improved when thousands of people who have committed heinous crimes are released from prison each year and then re-offend. In fact, the American justice system has arguably the most poor track record when it comes to public safety, and that is with virtually no executions taking place.
The notion you put forwards assumes all people objectively guilty of horrible crimes go to prison for their entire life, and that prison in American has the ability to rehabilitate. Both of which have no basis in real life.
Moreover, who is the government to tell someone not to seek revenge, or that revenge is wrong. Who is the government to tell someone how to feel. Indeed, all your arguments seemed to be based on some type of moral high ground and personal beliefs that have little factual basis.
Like the hat?
Banned
When I was younger, I had no problem with the death penalty, but as I get older I realize more and more what a bad idea it is. As long as everything is done by man, there will always be someone wrongly convicted.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
"This is why I'm only for death penalty when it's absolutely certain with no doubt that someone is guilty!"-folk are completely missing the point.
There is no 100% safe system, you'll always have false positives.
The question is if you think the lives of a few innocent are less valuable than being able to kill guilty men and women who are no longer a threat to society?
There is no 100% safe system, you'll always have false positives.
The question is if you think the lives of a few innocent are less valuable than being able to kill guilty men and women who are no longer a threat to society?
Again, your number is still insignificant compared to the budget of the US government as a whole and that math of an average contains the expenditures from all corrections. So, if you want to say "American's you'll save less than pennies on the dollar on your budget by murdering all the murders" then, okay, you're right. Honestly, though, we don't really need the pennies from blood money (which, if we're using saving money as an excuse, is what it is).No. It's a billion a year to house every murderer in 2012 alone, 16,227. Lets say there are 100,000 murders locked up for arguments sake. There are actually more than that, but we will low ball it just for you.
We will be using the numbers presented here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States which have references.
In 2005, on average, it costs $$23,876 a year to house state prisoners. We all know private prisons charge the government far more. In California it was $47,000. It increased $19,000 between 2001-2009.
For this example, we will not count inflation. We will assume no matter where you are in America, it costs $23,876 a year. Not including any legal defense (which can be between $10,000 - $100,000 depending). The number below, as you know, will be out by billions of dollars, but it will get the point across.
Assuming only 100,000 murders in prison. To house them for 1 single year it would cost $2,370,000,000. This does not count the 500,000 people in jail awaiting trial.
Now, as I stated, the economic benefits are not why you kill objectively guilty people. DNA evidence, also does not make you objectively guilty. You kill these people, like the Colorado shooter, for example, because there is no societal benefit to keep them alive.
Now, provide me with an argument as to the societal benefit of keeping the Colorado shooter alive. An argument that is not a judgement call based on personal beliefs or morals.
The amount of money we would save by cutting appeals and murdering quicker is negligible in the grand scheme of my cesspool's budget.
Now, as for your question, there are three answers:
1. The state uses those funds to provide jobs. Not a great reason, but it is a reason.
2. These individuals can be studied to provide data that, in the future, could prevent more murders or to help stop another criminal. Profiling, studying why people do these things, etc.
3. For certain people, who aren't crazy serial killers, they can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. Sure, they'll never be a CEO, but they may be able to make an honest living doing labor work.
The issues with the American prison system are many. Murdering people does not fix those issues. Nobody is denying that the American justice system has issues, but the death penalty does nothing to solve them. You have yet to argue as such.The public safety is not improved when thousands of people who have committed heinous crimes are released from prison each year and then re-offend. In fact, the American justice system has arguably the most poor track record when it comes to public safety, and that is with virtually no executions taking place.
The notion you put forwards assumes all people objectively guilty of horrible crimes go to prison for their entire life, and that prison in American has the ability to rehabilitate. Both of which have no basis in real life.
Moreover, who is the government to tell someone not to seek revenge, or that revenge is wrong. Who is the government to tell someone how to feel. Indeed, all your arguments seemed to be based on some type of moral high ground and personal beliefs that have little factual basis.
Again, your number is still insignificant compared to the budget of the US government as a whole and that math of an average contains the expenditures from all corrections. So, if you want to say "American's you'll save less than pennies on the dollar on your budget by murdering all the murders" then, okay, you're right. Honestly, though, we don't really need the pennies from blood money (which, if we're using saving money as an excuse, is what it is).
The amount of money we would save by cutting appeals and murdering quicker is negligible in the grand scheme of my cesspool's budget.
Now, as for your question, there are three answers:
1. The state uses those funds to provide jobs. Not a great reason, but it is a reason.
2. These individuals can be studied to provide data that, in the future, could prevent more murders or to help stop another criminal. Profiling, studying why people do these things, etc.
3. For certain people, who aren't crazy serial killers, they can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. Sure, they'll never be a CEO, but they may be able to make an honest living doing labor work.
As I continue to argue, I see alot of me posting factual numbers and stats. I see a lot of you providing me no real evidance to support your claims. Regardless, I will defeat them.
1. So you are saying it's fine to lock up people for no reason because it provides jobs. Oh my.
2. You are saying it's fine to waste $2,000,000 over the life span of a prisoner because they can be "studied". I assume you should talk to anthropology/psychology/sociology majors to find out why that is such an insane statement. Especially considering not all murders will be executed, and you will have tens of thousands to study. That, or you can use the research conducted by countries that happen to have a handle on their crime.
3. Do you have any evidence that objectively guilty murders can be rehabilitation in the American system and adjust to normal society once released? Or is that an assumption. What happens if that person released kills someone again. Do you not feel responsible for that murder of a completely innocent person like you would if an objectively guilty murder is executed?
The issues with the American prison system are many. Murdering people does not fix those issues. Nobody is denying that the American justice system has issues, but the death penalty does nothing to solve them. You have yet to argue as such.
My premise was never that the American Justice system would become better if you executed murderers. It was there are no societal benefits to keeping objectively guilty people like the Colorado Shooter alive. Spending upwards of $2,000,000 over their life time of tax payer money.
My premise was never that the American Justice system would become better if you executed murderers. It was there are no societal benefits to keeping objectively guilty people like the Colorado Shooter alive. Spending upwards of $2,000,000 over their life time of tax payer money.
It costs more to kill someone then to house them in prison for life. Get your facts straight before you spout of nonsense and premises based off of lies.
balladofwindfishes
Member
My premise was never that the American Justice system would become better if you executed murderers. It was there are no societal benefits to keeping objectively guilty people like the Colorado Shooter alive. Spending upwards of $2,000,000 over their life time of tax payer money.
if just one innocent person is murdered, we are no better as a society than the actual murders.
It costs more to kill someone then to house them in prison for life. Get your facts straight before you spout of nonsense and premises based off of lies.
I am not suggesting killing them the current Way America does. Take them out behind the prison, bullet to the head. All is done. It also only costs more because of all the fee's I am talking about. Unless you think the chemicals used in lethal injections cost over $1,000,000.
what are you talking about? Police are angels and all the bad ones caught get the same punishment they would if they were civilians.More needs to be done to track down the corrupt cops that coerce and force people into giving false statements.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
The public safety is not improved when thousands of people who have committed heinous crimes are released from prison each year and then re-offend. In fact, the American justice system has arguably the most poor track record when it comes to public safety, and that is with virtually no executions taking place.
The notion you put forwards assumes all people objectively guilty of horrible crimes go to prison for their entire life, and that prison in American has the ability to rehabilitate. Both of which have no basis in real life.
Moreover, who is the government to tell someone not to seek revenge, or that revenge is wrong. Who is the government to tell someone how to feel. Indeed, all your arguments seemed to be based on some type of moral high ground and personal beliefs that have little factual basis.
The issues with the prison system in America are not what we're discussing.
The government actively tells people not to seek revenge (vigilante justice is never allowed) but has no input on whether or not people should want or expect revenge. My argument is not based on morals, but on what is in the government's best interest.
That we execute at all is more a reflection of the poor state of our prison system and how our culture views it more than an issue in and of itself.
I am not suggesting killing them the current Way America does. Take them out behind the prison, bullet to the head. All is done. It also only costs more because of all the fee's I am talking about. Unless you think the chemicals used in lethal injections cost over $1,000,000.
This is not how a nation that respects human life behaves. Full stop.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I am not suggesting killing them the current Way America does. Take them out behind the prison, bullet to the head. All is done. It also only costs more because of all the fee's I am talking about. Unless you think the chemicals used in lethal injections cost over $1,000,000.
it's not the chemicals used, it's the appeals process and the cost of proving that the person needs to be put to death
you make that process cheaper and it just leads to more innocents being murdered.
Omegasquash
Member
I am not suggesting killing them the current Way America does. Take them out behind the prison, bullet to the head. All is done. It also only costs more because of all the fee's I am talking about. Unless you think the chemicals used in lethal injections cost over $1,000,000.
He's talking about the appeals process, the time spent in prison stalling, etc. What you seem to suggest is streamlining killing someone, if I'm not mistaken.
Edit: Beaten
I am not suggesting killing them the current Way America does. Take them out behind the prison, bullet to the head. All is done. It also only costs more because of all the fee's I am talking about. Unless you think the chemicals used in lethal injections cost over $1,000,000.
Do you know how many innocent people would be murdered that way?
Do you know that there are other costs then lethal injections, such as paying for lawyers to keep prosecuting during the appeal process? What about their right to defense council, who we also pay for?
Have you ever read any of the studies on just how many false convictions there are out there? Have you seen how many people are thrown in jail based off of forced statements, and falsified witness testimonies?
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Do you know how many innocent people would be murdered that way?
Do you know that there are other costs then lethal injections, such as paying for lawyers to keep prosecuting during the appeal process? What about their right to defense council, who we also pay for?
Have you ever read any of the studies on just how many false convictions there are out there? Have you seen how many people are thrown in jail based off of forced statements, and falsified witness testimonies?
BUT COLORADO SHOOTER
He's talking about the appeals process, the time spent in prison stalling, etc. What you seem to suggest is streamlining killing someone, if I'm not mistaken.
Edit: Beaten
We seem to have an entire new batch of people in this thread.
Please go back and read everything I wrote. I am not going to restate my arguments 20 times as new people pop in and out. I have addressed all of this. In fact, you bringing it up, supports MY point.
I also said Objectively guilty people. Not all murders. People you know, without any doubt, from DNA, video, and eye witness testimony combinations are guilty.
The Colorado shooter is an example I used.
I don't know what's more asinine, the idea that it's okay to murder people with "no benefit to society" or that peoples' lives would actually improve with a reallocation of "housing objectively guilty murderers" tax dollars. Average Joe Taxpayer wouldn't notice the difference. (Never mind the fact that execution is typically more costly than life in prison.)
I don't know what's more asinine, the idea that it's okay to murder people with "no benefit to society" or that peoples' lives would actually improve with a reallocation of "housing objectively guilty murderers" tax dollars. Average Joe Taxpayer wouldn't notice the difference. (Never mind the fact that execution is typically more costly than life in prison.)
Spending millions of dollars defending and housing a guy like this
NSFW NSFW http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f1f_1358570671
seems more asinine to me personally.
I also jumped into this debate because it was stated earlier in this thread not only should we help people who murder others, but the prisons need to be made much nicer for them to live a comfortable life.
balladofwindfishes
Member
We seem to have an entire new batch of people in this thread.
Please go back and read everything I wrote. I am not going to restate my arguments 20 times as new people pop in and out. I have addressed all of this. In fact, you bringing it up, supports MY point.
I also said Objectively guilty people. Not all murders. People you know, without any doubt, from DNA, video, and eye witness testimony combinations are guilty.
The Colorado shooter is an example I used.
what if next week they found out the Colorado shooter was innocent and they had killed the wrong man?
Everyone on the list of innocents was "objectively guilty" at one time, whether it from a lack of evidence or "solid" eyewitness testimony
You keep spouting costs of housing him, but going through with the death penalty is more expensive than housing him for life. Using that argument is making you look bad.Spending millions of dollars defending and housing a guy like this
NSFW NSFW http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f1f_1358570671
seems more asinine to me personally.
I also jumped into this debate because it was stated earlier in this thread not only should we help people who murder others, but the prisons need to be made much nicer for them to live a comfortable life.
I don't know what other way to explain to you that the amount of money saved isn't a lot. I'm not saying you're "wrong" about the number, I'm saying you're wrong that it is a big enough deal to consider it of consequence. Pumping two billion more per year, spread out among fifty states, is negligible. That's my point on the money. You can bring up the money all you want but it's like arguing cutting funding to NPR has any impact on the US debt. It's so small, that it's not worth consideration.As I continue to argue, I see alot of me posting factual numbers and stats. I see a lot of you providing me no real evidance to support your claims. Regardless, I will defeat them.
1. So you are saying it's fine to lock up people for no reason because it provides jobs. Oh my.
2. You are saying it's fine to waste $2,000,000 over the life span of a prisoner because they can be "studied". I assume you should talk to anthropology/psychology/sociology majors to find out why that is such an insane statement. Especially considering not all murders will be executed, and you will have tens of thousands to study. That, or you can use the research conducted by countries that happen to have a handle on their crime.
3. Do you have any evidence that objectively guilty murders can be rehabilitation in the American system and adjust to normal society once released? Or is that an assumption. What happens if that person released kills someone again. Do you not feel responsible for that murder of a completely innocent person like you would if an objectively guilty murder is executed?
As for my points.
1. As I said, it was a bad reason. However, it was a reason. Now, you don't want morality being considered, however if we (we being Americans) believe in a certain moral code, paying those employees to do the work of watching the criminals is putting the money where our mouth is. You may not agree, but those employees are more than empty jobs. They're a statement.
2. Yes, I'm suggesting that their existence can have meaning. The Aurora shooter is mentally a different person than the guy Newtown. There are many motivations behind crazy people doing crazy things. If the expense can help prevent a few crazy people doing more crazy things because we better understand crazy, than we have a legit reason to not kill these people. Why wouldn't we spend the money to do that?
3. Now we're getting into discussing the American prison system's issues. I don't believe that our system of justice is designed around rehabilitation, no. That's obviously something America needs to do better. I do believe, however, that hand waving the possibility of rehabilitation away because it's just easier to kill somebody is wrong. Sure, if a murderer gets out of jail and goes off to kill somebody else, that's bad. However, your apprehension against this has more to do with an issue with the American prison system than actual justification for state-sanctioned murder. So my point, in a better American society, still stands.
My premise was never that the American Justice system would become better if you executed murderers. It was there are no societal benefits to keeping objectively guilty people like the Colorado Shooter alive. Spending upwards of $2,000,000 over their life time of tax payer money.
What about the benefit of America being able to have the moral high ground when dealing with other countries like China in regards to human rights violations? How much is that worth?
scar tissue
Banned
So you're a bloodthirsty psychopath who's ravenous appetite for what you want to call 'justice' is only sated by ending the life of other murderers?
You keep going back to the Colorado shooter as if he is representative of some large portion of the prison population. You know he's not and I think you go back to him again and again because you want to get people thinking along the lines of a revenge based penal system.
Full ack. I can't believe what's going on ITT. Death penalty defense force is saying 1% margin of error is good enough, kill 'em without a trial and without defendant, and this is supposed to save some serious money. Fucking lol.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
We seem to have an entire new batch of people in this thread.
Please go back and read everything I wrote. I am not going to restate my arguments 20 times as new people pop in and out. I have addressed all of this. In fact, you bringing it up, supports MY point.
I also said Objectively guilty people. Not all murders. People you know, without any doubt, from DNA, video, and eye witness testimony combinations are guilty.
The Colorado shooter is an example I used.
Yeah, we know he is. You mention him in nearly every post as if he's representative of some large portion of the prison population.
A nation that respects human life doesn't execute civilians. Look at the map here of which nations have capital punishment and ask yourself if we're on the right side of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country
So long as he's kept in prison posing no harm to society, what's the problem? I'd happily let my tax dollars house a murderer so long as it means that a wrongly convicted person isn't executed. It's clear to me by the nature of your posts that you're a bloodthirsty individual who derives pleasure from "revenge."
Capital punishment is antiquated, inhumane, and in some cases unjust. With any luck, we'll look back on the death penalty with the same enlightened disgust currently reserved for racism and homophobia. You're on the wrong side of history with this one, Hammurabi.
scar tissue
Banned
Do you know how many innocent people would be murdered that way?
The rate of death penalty sentences would very likely even increase because the judge would think "Why give him life in prison which costs the state $1 Billion, if I could give him death, which would cost only a bullet?"
Making death cheaper than life in prison is the worst idea ever.
Yeah, we know he is. You mention him in nearly every post as if he's representative of some large portion of the prison population.
A nation that respects human life doesn't execute civilians. Look at the map here of which nations have capital punishment and ask yourself if we're on the right side of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country
I have adressed all the arguments presented above at least a dozen times in this thread. Feel free to read the thread to get my response. I simply cant argue with 10 new people every 10 minutes and continuously post all my information. Which includes many statistics and large amounts of DATA.
One thing I have no adressed, however, is the capital punishment based on region argument.
The reason those countries do not have capital punishment, is because it is not needed. The notion that BECAUSE they do not have capital punishment, they have a lower crime rate, has never once be correlated with any type of scientific data or study. In other words, outside of a picture, you have no evidence to support your claim.
Moreover, all of those countries had capital punishment when they had bad crime. As crime went down, they abolished it. Canada, where I am from, for example. Treats murderers very harshly. Far worse than America does. We do not have capital punishment, because our entire country has about as many murderers as Chicago did alone last year. Toronto, which is identical in size to Chicago, is the safest metro city in North America. Yet the Toronto police force is known as one of the most brutal and unforgiving.
It's the exact same argument people make about guns. They say "Well, look at all the cities and states with gun control, they have the most murders with firearms. Thus, gun control does not work". They do not stop to think that the REASON they have gun control is because of how violent the areas were without it in the first place. Crime didn't go up once gun control was put into place.
The same argument can be said about the countries with the death penalty. The REASON you have the death penalty, is because American crime is so bad it is needed. In fact, you could use the very same argument and say look at all the states that have gotten rid of it. Their crime rates have only increased. AS have the amount of people reoffended. This data is shown and supported in links I posted earlier in this thread.
America is also a unique case. None of the countries you show in that map with low crime rates are run the same as each other. They have all found their own approaches to reducing crime. America needs to do the same. A country with 330,000,000 people can't copy one with 30,000,000 and expect it to work.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Surely people realize that there is no such thing as someone being objectively guilty?
And who would in this hypothetical system designate "objectively" guilty individuals and remove them from the appeals process?
Sorry, you either have a lengthy and expensive appeal process that is more expensive than life imprisonment and some innocents killed, or you have a short appeal process that is cheaper than life and more innocents killed.
If you don't want innocents killed at all, you have to disagree with capital punishment even being an option.
And who would in this hypothetical system designate "objectively" guilty individuals and remove them from the appeals process?
Sorry, you either have a lengthy and expensive appeal process that is more expensive than life imprisonment and some innocents killed, or you have a short appeal process that is cheaper than life and more innocents killed.
If you don't want innocents killed at all, you have to disagree with capital punishment even being an option.
balladofwindfishes
Member
The same argument can be said about the countries with the death penalty. The REASON you have the death penalty, is because American crime is so bad it is needed
there isn't a situation where the death penalty is needed. It's more expensive and runs the very real risk of turning society into murderers by killing innocent people.
Do you understand killing innocent people? As in they did nothing wrong and we killed them? This is acceptable?
So long as he's kept in prison posing no harm to society, what's the problem? I'd happily let my tax dollars house a murderer so long as it means that a wrongly convicted person isn't executed. It's clear to me by the nature of your posts that you're a bloodthirsty individual who derives pleasure from "revenge."
Capital punishment is antiquated, inhumane, and in some cases unjust. With any luck, we'll look back on the death penalty with the same enlightened disgust currently reserved for racism and homophobia. You're on the wrong side of history with this one, Hammurabi.
He won't be in prison. He will probably get less than a life sentence. This is the problem. 80 percent of violent criminals in America, who were objectively guilty get out and reoffend.
Why is it that you are morally ok with keeping an objectively guilty murderer alive. But at the same time ok if he gets out and kills someone again. Which happens ALL THE TIME. Your entire argument hinges on the fact you think people who commit violent crimes go to prison forever, or are some how rehabilitated once in prison. The statistics show this is 100 percent false.
You also notice how I said OBJECTIVELY. To be objectively guilty it means you have a combination of video or audio, DNA and sometimes eye witness testimony. Many many people in prison for murder fall under all three of these.
I am not for killing subjectively guilty murderers.
there isn't a situation where the death penalty is needed. It's more expensive and runs the very real risk of turning society into murderers by killing innocent people.
Do you understand killing innocent people? As in they did nothing wrong and we killed them? This is acceptable?
Stop saying it's more expensive. read my arguments. It being expensive, is why it needs to be reformed, and objectively guilty people should be executed.
Taking someone like the Oklahoma city bomber, or someone caught on camera shooting someone else in the face. Behind a prison, and killing them. Is not as expensive as housing them for 4 decades. I broke down ALL THE NUMBERS. Every single one. Earlier in this thread. Go back and read.
You are also making an argument based on a judgement call due to your own moral high ground. This alone puts anything you say into question.
You are arguing with yourself.
I also find it ironic that Americans, many of whom voted for Obama and or Bush. Are so against Capital punishment of people you know without a shadow of a doubt are guilty (often caught on video). Yet vote for leaders that commit drone strikes and kill more innocents in 1 month than mistaken executions have in two decades.
Omegasquash
Member
We seem to have an entire new batch of people in this thread.
Please go back and read everything I wrote. I am not going to restate my arguments 20 times as new people pop in and out. I have addressed all of this. In fact, you bringing it up, supports MY point.
I also said Objectively guilty people. Not all murders. People you know, without any doubt, from DNA, video, and eye witness testimony combinations are guilty.
The Colorado shooter is an example I used.
I did you that courtesy, and I still stand by what I wrote. In addition, your acceptance of a 99% success rate for executing the right person isn't acceptable to many in this thread. I put forward that as a society we should not accept it.
And if you read (and I'm assuming that you did) what I wrote a while back, you'll see that I support execution for crimes worthy of the punishment (which is a debate for another thread). My point is that we aren't there yet as a society to be able to make that call with 100% accuracy 100% of the time. You're comfortable with a more flexible number, and your (somewhat) casual deliver of that comfort level is what puts lots of folks here in stark disagreement with you.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
A combination of eye witness testimony, DNA-based correlations, video/audio record of the act does not make for a criteria that will not result in innocents being killed.
It has already been brought up by others that eye witnesses are unreliable, and the same goes for DNA and video/audio recordings (even if they are of the crime itself).
DNA is not reliable because the methodology used will result in false-positives, and video/audio recordings are not reliable because they can easily be falsified and edited.
A 99%, or even a 99.99%, success rate will still result in innocents being killed, and that brings us back to the first question I asked in this thread:
Do you think the lives of a few innocent are less valuable than being able to kill guilty men and women who are no longer a threat to society?
If your issue is that most criminals who are returned to society commit crimes, then your energy is better spent questioning why criminals who return to society commit crimes and what can be done to stop them from doing so. Or argue for a definitive lifetime sentence that will only ever be upturned if it turns out that the criminal in question has been falsely imprisoned.
It has already been brought up by others that eye witnesses are unreliable, and the same goes for DNA and video/audio recordings (even if they are of the crime itself).
DNA is not reliable because the methodology used will result in false-positives, and video/audio recordings are not reliable because they can easily be falsified and edited.
A 99%, or even a 99.99%, success rate will still result in innocents being killed, and that brings us back to the first question I asked in this thread:
Do you think the lives of a few innocent are less valuable than being able to kill guilty men and women who are no longer a threat to society?
If your issue is that most criminals who are returned to society commit crimes, then your energy is better spent questioning why criminals who return to society commit crimes and what can be done to stop them from doing so. Or argue for a definitive lifetime sentence that will only ever be upturned if it turns out that the criminal in question has been falsely imprisoned.
I will take 10 mistakes for 990 pieces of shit being killed.
Fucked up
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
The REASON you have the death penalty, is because American crime is so bad it is needed.
You don't realize it but you're making arguments on what you think are facts without actually understanding what they mean. Bye, thread.
A combination of eye witness testimony, DNA-based correlations, video/audio record of the act does not make for a criteria that will not result in innocents being killed.
It has already been brought up by others that eye witnesses are unreliable, and the same goes for DNA and video/audio recordings (even if they are of the crime itself).
DNA is not reliable because the methodology used will result in false-positives, and video/audio recordings are not reliable because they can easily be falsified and edited.
A 99%, or even a 99.99%, success rate will still result in innocents being killed, and that brings us back to the first question I asked in this thread:
Do you think the lives of a few innocent are less valuable than being able to kill guilty men and women who are no longer a threat to society?
A video recording of someone walking into a convince store, and murdering the person behind the counter. While his DNA is found at the scene and finger prints are on the murder weapons. Is not subjective. Yet it happens all the time. All the time.
DNA alone is not enough. Video alone is not enough. Eye witness alone is not enough. It's a combination of all these things.
How many people who have been found innocent, were proven guilty with a combination of all these factors? The answer is 0.
computers putin'
Member
The fuck is wrong with Texas? The state seems all too happy to hand out the death penalty.
This is sad, but it does nothing to convince me that abolishing capital punishment is the right thing to do. Yes, these innocent people shouldn't have been executed, but getting rid of CP isn't going to solve anything. Shouldn't we be focusing on fixing our law enforcement system? Most of those people end up in jail because of corrupt cops and false testimony. By fixing those issues we won't be sending innocent people to jail or even execute them.
It is kind of like having a poisonous tree in your backyard, you want to remove it, but all you do is cut off the branches instead of going straight to the roots and yanking the tree.
Also, capital punishment is necessary. Having severe consequences for killing/raping,etc... will help deter other people from doing the same. It is sickening to think that are rapists and murders in prison enjoying some luxuries that even free people don't get to enjoy.
It is kind of like having a poisonous tree in your backyard, you want to remove it, but all you do is cut off the branches instead of going straight to the roots and yanking the tree.
Also, capital punishment is necessary. Having severe consequences for killing/raping,etc... will help deter other people from doing the same. It is sickening to think that are rapists and murders in prison enjoying some luxuries that even free people don't get to enjoy.
We seem to have an entire new batch of people in this thread.
Please go back and read everything I wrote.
Earlier....
I will take 10 mistakes for 990 pieces of shit being killed.
I'm sorry, but this undermines everything else you have to say on this issue (and possibly any other issue). You're for expedited executions of the "objectively guilty" (a term that does not originate from the legal system, oddly enough) - people who absolutely, 100% did it - ... but it's actually okay if we're wrong 1% of the time? 1% sounds so small, but in reality, that is an atrocious error rate when we're talking about shooting our own citizens in the head. Maybe emotion got the best of you and you're not REALLY for an ADDITIONAL 10 innocent people to die for every 990 criminals we punish - do you want to retract your earlier statement, or do you stand by it? If the latter, how high are you willing to go? Is 5% really that much worse than 1%? Is 10% way too high?
balladofwindfishes
Member
This is sad, but it does nothing to convince me that abolishing capital punishment is the right thing to do. Yes, these innocent people shouldn't have been executed, but getting rid of CP isn't going to solve anything.
it'll solve innocent people being executed...
how can we as a society justify executing a criminal who murdered an innocent person, when we're able to accept that society can murder innocent people to execute that criminal...
Omegasquash
Member
The fuck is wrong with Texas? The state seems all too happy to hand out the death penalty.
You answer your question immediately after writing it. No offense to friends from Texas, but that place is a little fucked up.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
A video recording of someone walking into a convince store, and murdering the person behind the counter. While his DNA is found at the scene and finger prints are on the murder weapons. Is not subjective. Yet it happens all the time. All the time.
DNA alone is not enough. Video alone is not enough. Eye witness alone is not enough. It's a combination of all these things.
How many people who have been found innocent, were proven guilty with a combination of all these factors? The answer is 0.
The answer to your question is that we know no innocent that has been proven guilty as a result of a combination of the evidences you've proposed in bold. That in itself does not mean that no innocent has been convicted for those things.
Dark numbers, we'll always discover more falsely imprisoned individuals than there actually are.
While I agree with you that it seems unlikely for all these forms of evidences to all point towards an innocent being guilty as a result of inherent unreliability, that all flies out of the window when we take into account the fact that evidence is not tamper-proof.
They are not inherently tamper-proof (audio/video can for an example be edited with modern audio/video editing software) and there is no reason to believe that people in the future will not tamper with evidence when it has been going on since the establishment of a justice system.
That's why I think the notion of an "objective" proof is kinda ridiculous. You will always have innocents falsely accused, even if we aren't aware of them, so you're nonetheless forced to ask you the truly hard question if you believe that accidentally killing innocents is a price worth paying for institutionalized vengeance.
scar tissue
Banned
Let's disregard the ethics for a moment:A video recording of someone walking into a convince store, and murdering the person behind the counter. While his DNA is found at the scene and finger prints are on the murder weapons. Is not subjective. Yet it happens all the time. All the time.
DNA alone is not enough. Video alone is not enough. Eye witness alone is not enough. It's a combination of all these things.
How many people who have been found innocent, were proven guilty with a combination of all these factors? The answer is 0.
How many of these people actually exist? Camera recording, plus DNA, plus eye witness. Both the witness and the camera must have seen/recorded the suspect in broad daylight or at least sufficiently bright artificial light. Some grainy cam footage and the witness seeing "a big white guy with a hoodie" is not sufficient.
And then we must consider the motivation behind the crime - maybe it was out of revenge (see: the guy who killed the killer of his children in that thread the other day), we cannot just say "all murders and murderers are equal".
You'd be hard pressed to find enough of these people that the savings would make a significant impact into the USA's debt.
it'll solve innocent people being executed...
Yes, and instead, they will remain in prison until they die, finish their sentence, or are proven innocent. Not to mention that they run the risk of getting raped in prison.
Did you not read the rest of my previous post? You are not exactly solving the problem by removing CP.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Yes, and instead, they will remain in prison until they die, finish their sentence, or are proven innocent. Not to mention that they run the risk of getting raped in prison.
but they're not dead
LyleLanley
Banned
Yes, and instead, they will remain in prison until they die, finish their sentence, or are proven innocent. Not to mention that they run the risk of getting raped in prison.
Surely the chance to live and fight, through appeals, for your freedom is infinitely better than being killed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.