Poll: The Death Penalty
- Thread starter Chunko
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Dudley Sharp, Death Penalty Resources Director of Justice For All (JFA), in a Justice for All presentation titled "Death Penalty and Sentencing Information," wrote:
"Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.
There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive... than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP."
Edwin Sutherland, PhD, late President of the American Sociological Society, and Donald R. Cressey, PhD, late Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the revised edition of their book titled Criminology, wrote:
"[The] cost is not inherent in the [death] penalty, but imposed by judges. It is not cheaper to keep a criminal confined, because most of the time he will appeal just as much causing as many costs as a convict under death sentence. Being alive and having nothing better to do, he will spend his time in prison conceiving of ever-new habeas corpus petitions, which being unlimited, in effect cannot be rejected as res judicata. The cost is higher."
"Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.
There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive... than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP."
Edwin Sutherland, PhD, late President of the American Sociological Society, and Donald R. Cressey, PhD, late Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the revised edition of their book titled Criminology, wrote:
"[The] cost is not inherent in the [death] penalty, but imposed by judges. It is not cheaper to keep a criminal confined, because most of the time he will appeal just as much causing as many costs as a convict under death sentence. Being alive and having nothing better to do, he will spend his time in prison conceiving of ever-new habeas corpus petitions, which being unlimited, in effect cannot be rejected as res judicata. The cost is higher."
Honestly, there are some crimes that deserve death as a punishment. However, with the human capability for error, bias and general failure, we cannot possibly presume to be able to judge anyone in a trial for their life.
Therefore, the death penalty could only work in the presence of an all knowing, all wise, incorruptible, impartial judge. However, such a perfect thing does not exist, so there is no feasible way to the death penalty to be morally workable
Therefore, the death penalty could only work in the presence of an all knowing, all wise, incorruptible, impartial judge. However, such a perfect thing does not exist, so there is no feasible way to the death penalty to be morally workable
Eye for any eye is fine with me. In this case, death for a death is also fine.
One thing though, this thread has been done. And when I say that I mean that I've psoted in at least 5 others. And I avoided many more than 5. So the search bar would've been a good idea. But that's just my opinion, I don't need to be flamed for disliking repeat threads.
One thing though, this thread has been done. And when I say that I mean that I've psoted in at least 5 others. And I avoided many more than 5. So the search bar would've been a good idea. But that's just my opinion, I don't need to be flamed for disliking repeat threads.
While I agree with you, I actually did some research paper on this, and it costs more to put a man on death row (because during this time he can petition constantly to get the hell out) and wastes lots of tax payer dollars and the court cases, etc. It would be cheaper to put him in a concrete box for the rest of his life and feed him his own excretions with a slight chocolate flavor added for some zing.lwm3398 said:
Also, There shouldn't be a death penalty for treason even though it's a "capital offence". It sounds waaaay to monarchistic.
Murderers, Paedophiles and Rapists, should be killed if proven 100% to be guilty, unless they plead guilty (excpet if the victim was anyone under the age of 16), which then they should be tortured and exucuted), as which they spend life getting bummed in the arse by big men in the showers. Also they should have done to them what they did to the victim.
You never know if someone is 100% guilty. Errors can still be made.FolkLikePanda said:
What the hell is the point of torturing them? That solves absolutely nothing and only wastes time. Same goes for the net thing you suggested.
And an 'Eye for an Eye' does not work. If a homeless person steals a TV from someone, what do you do to them? They don't have anything you can steal from them.
That I am quite prepared to protect what is mine - be it my house, my property, my rights, or my society - by means of force and violence. It is simply an extension of self-defence - on a societal scale.Captain Pancake said:
Two wrongs may not make a right, but it sure as Hell makes us feel better.CrystalShadow said:
I for one, DON'T want to know there's a murder/rapist waiting to break out/be released from prison.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS
Homeless person? You take the tele back and give them some money, as you feel sympathy for them and with all this forensic stuff going on, you can probabaly prove someones guilty 9 times out of 10, but I think they should give the death penalty only if they're sure there are no holes surrounding there suspiciousness.
Were not talking about some minor stuff, were talking about taking the eye from a murderer. You can't blind a dead person.A random person said:
Difference
I'm against it.
Sentencing someone who's murdered another person (or another crime) to death just seems so hypocritical... yes, they've done something wrong, but killing them just makes us as bad as him/her. Besides, they don't get a chance to redeem themselves or feel regret if we just kill them.
Sentencing someone who's murdered another person (or another crime) to death just seems so hypocritical... yes, they've done something wrong, but killing them just makes us as bad as him/her. Besides, they don't get a chance to redeem themselves or feel regret if we just kill them.