I guess that explains it. You support putting down people guilty of petty crimes like they were animals, you scorn immigrants, and you have troubles with spelling and grammar. Tell me, do you also vote Lega Nord?
You cannot avoid imprisoning people (I am fairly dovish on this issue and think that prisons are too often hell, a place where people change for the worse and not for the better ... but you obviously do wanna imprison rapists and murderers and not just force them to do community work or pay a fine.) but you can avoid executing them.
I'm against it. But there are times that my emotions get the better of me and I think they should take someone out and hang them. Especially when the crime involves children.
I live in a state that executes more people than most countries and where the entire process has been "streamlined" to kill more prisoners more quickly, providing less opportunities for appeals and removing more barriers what would have previously spared someone from execution. It hasn't stopped crime at all. It hasn't improved the quality of life of the citizens and certainly hasn't reduced prison populations any. I have very mixed feelings about it, but to be honest, I think, at its core, it's little more than regulated savagery.
I used to be in favor of the death penalty but now I'm against it. For many reasons: - The possibility of executing an innocent person is just too great. - It's expensive. Probably more so than incarceration. - For the worst criminals, the kind that you'd think would deserve death: Death's too good for them. Let them rot in jail knowing what will eventually happen to them ...it might inspire them to have a change of heart.
Well, there's a huge difference between life being ruined and life being over. One has a chance for getting some semblance of a life back. I can't see how death would be preferable even if the goal is to reduce both. That's narrowing. I think the average is about 10 years now, but it's going closer to five. Habeas cases are virtually impossible to succeed these days and you really only get one shot at that plus the direct appeal (if you assume two for both that's four years before they can start planning your execution). Florida just passed a bill to speed up the death penalty process. When pointed out that the delay allows innocent individuals to have a chance to be exonerated, Republican Senator Rob Bradley responded with, "This is not about guilt or innocence, it's about timely justice." In other words, it doesn't matter whether the person executed is innocent or not, society needs to see someone executed quickly for justice to be served.
No-one has been executed in my state since 1946 (and only a total of 3 men were executed in the entire 20th century). Society here hasn't fallen to pieces as a result of not executing people.
I think the death penalty is wrong. Buuut.. if there is ever a planet where we could stick rapists and killers... I don't know. I just wish that people who wish to do others harm could be beamed to another place where they could do harm to eachother. Peace for the peacefull.
I certainly understand the emotion behind that. But that's exactly why we have the system we do. So that anger and vengeance do not rule. Let cooler, more objective heads prevail. In theory, anyway...
I don't wish them harm. I just want the rest of us to be safe from them. A long prison sentence -- life, if need be -- serves that purpose. Not 100% of the time, but usually.
I agree and would say that being locked up in one place and the way this stains your biography and thus impacts your life after prison is punishment enough, at least for us rich Westerners. (I don't wanna imply that in pre-modern times or in third world countries a decent life in prison, being warm, well-fed, secure, able to read and exercise and so on, would not have been too comfortable.) Furthermore even a rapist or a murderer might not commit the crime again when he gets out (assuming that it isn't a life sentence). Making prison hell reduces the chances for actually becoming a better person afterwards. Not to mention that claiming to defend civilization against crime while being fine with incarcerated people getting hurt is utterly hypocritical.
I'm generally not in favor of it, although there are a few rare cases where I can see it being arguably warranted (the Nuremberg trials and Saddam Hussein being two examples). I think life without parole is ideal for most crimes.
I thnk the death penalty is pointless. No matter how many monsters get executed, there is always another one getting in line to take their place. I would prefer to replace the death penalty with life in prison without parole, and applied only for first-degree murder. It would also eliminate the possibility of an innocent person being murdered by the state.
I wouldn't necessarily mind the death penalty for war crimes either but I think that the ICC solution is better. I also think that getting executed can make you a martyr in the eyes of your political fans whereas rotting in prison is not so glorious. Let's also not ignore the implications of 'death penalty for war criminals': If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. I am not a fan of Chomsky but here he is correct.
IF the death penalty wasn't unequally applied against minorities, the less educated, and the poor... IF the death penalty wasn't more expensive than life imprisonment... IF the death penalty was part of consistent nationwide sentencing guidelines and didn't vary by state to state... IF the death penalty actually served as an effective deterrent against crime... IF the death penalty was only applied to those who were guaranteed beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty... Then I still would be opposed to capital punishment because it's hypocritical, illogical, and morally wrong to punish murder with state sanctioned murder. Please tell me that you were just being your usual pointlessly contrarian self and that you didn't seriously consider this to be an effective argument.
Couldn't one argue that warfare is essentially a form of state-sponsored murder, and one that seems to get far more of a free pass than the death penalty? I'm asking only as a devil's advocate and I agree with all of your Ifs, I'm just not entirely convinced that the state is inherently murdering when there are circumstances that might cost an extremely dangerous and clearly guilty offender their life. I can't speak for JarodRussell, but I do think his examples have a valid context to them. Life without parole is far better in my mind as a maximum punishment for most crimes, but it could still be argued to be a death penalty. The state just won't kill you quickly.