- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 0
As long as justice is served.So you are cool with the death penalty as long as lynchings are fair game?
As long as justice is served.So you are cool with the death penalty as long as lynchings are fair game?
Against.
Life in prison is a worse punishment in my opinion. It is also too expensive and government should not decide when or when not to kill people.
Keeping someone in prison for life is WAY more expensive than the death penalty.
In terms of the horrid legal processes, yeah, I can see the expense. But if we could reform it in a way where if you get the death penalty, you have a maxiumum of 3 years to challenge it (and a law which guaranteed that you could be heard in that amount of time, and another law which states the subsequent process couldn't be drawn out more than a year) that would cut costs a whole lot. In other words, it needs to be done in a way where if you're convicted, the process is expedited and you're put to death relatively quickly.
Life in prision means food, water, all those man-hours of working guards watching you, needing to build new facilities, upkeep on current facilities, etc. It's expensive too.
I am absolutely for the death penalty, as in the act of ending the guilty person's life, but I'm not for the process which draws it out 25+ years.
Did you read the links Jack Handy jr posted about the innocent people that have been rescued from death row?
All of them were only found to have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death AFTER 3 years had passed.
In terms of the horrid legal processes, yeah, I can see the expense. But if we could reform it in a way where if you get the death penalty, you have a maxiumum of 3 years to challenge it (and a law which guaranteed that you could be heard in that amount of time, and another law which states the subsequent process couldn't be drawn out more than a year) that would cut costs a whole lot. In other words, it needs to be done in a way where if you're convicted, the process is expedited and you're put to death relatively quickly.
Life in prision means food, water, all those man-hours of working guards watching you, needing to build new facilities, upkeep on current facilities, etc. It's expensive too.
I am absolutely for the death penalty, as in the act of ending the guilty person's life, but I'm not for the process which draws it out 25+ years.
The death penalty is more humane than locking them up for life.
Also, it gives the accused the chance to get right with God before his time is up.
2 wrongs don't make a right.
Ppl in a civilized society should not stoop to the level of the criminal.
Killing him won't bring the love ones back, so the best thing to do is lock him up for a long time.
Only because of the endless bureaucracy. Killing can be as cheap as pushing someone off a cliff. Cliffs are free.
It sure does. Most murders are committed by people that have done so more than once. Killing them prevents 100% recidivism rates.
That is not an issue with what I posted.Gee, don't you think it's important to make sure the guy you are executing is actually guilty?
Appeal to emotion. I really want to be a billionaire, but my feelings don't and shouldn't change things that effect others.I'm sure if you were wrongfully convicted of a crime, you would like as much of that bureaucracy as possible.
I almost fell out of my chair reading the irony here.You argue like a child.
Killing shoplifters n drunk drivers will also prevents 100% of recidivism, is that something to consider?
Tell me how a system that kills every offender of a crime doesn't solve recidivism? That's what the punishment side of the judicial system is for. Not the prevention of the crimes that took place but the crimes that they might commit in the future.The bottom line is the system you advocate doesn't solve the problem.
Ppl will still kill regardless.
Pretty sure confining someone in a cage is criminal behaviour as well. There is no high ground with punishment.