Tonik Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Yes, the thought of executing an innocent person is gut-wrenching and heartbreaking. But, absent being exonerated, I don't think someone spending 50+ years behind bars and dying in a prison cell an innocent man is any more palatable or morally superior. It's not the 'thought' of executing innocent people. It is the fact that we are executing innocent people. And it isn't a choice between executing an innocent person and keeping them in prison for life. It is having the option to release them and make restitution. Carlos DeLuna who I linked to earlier in the thread was 27 when the State of Texas murdered him. He would have been 44 when he was shown to be innocent. Still plenty of life left to live as a free and very rich man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 It's not the 'thought' of executing innocent people. It is the fact that we are executing innocent people. And it isn't a choice between executing an innocent person and keeping them in prison for life. It is having the option to release them and make restitution. Carlos DeLuna who I linked to earlier in the thread was 27 when the State of Texas murdered him. He would have been 44 when he was shown to be innocent. Still plenty of life left to live as a free and very rich man. But you didn't answer my question: how many innocent people should have to spend 17 years in prison to justify imprisoning guilty persons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 But you didn't answer my question: how many innocent people should have to spend 17 years in prison to justify imprisoning guilty persons? Not sure I understand the question. It sounds like you don't think life in prison with no parole for guilty people is enough of a punishment? They pay for their crime, they are never a threat to us again and it's FAR cheaper than executing them. I honestly don't understand your question. How many innocent people need to be murdered in cold blood by the justice system to justify ending the death penalty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) I'm just flipping your tactics back around to attack your logic:You said: How many innocent people should die to preserve the death penalty? I said: how many innocent people should be imprisoned to preserve imprisonment? It's just as straight-forward and loaded as your question. Edited January 15, 2014 by smashweights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 I'm just flipping your tactics back around to attack your logic:You said: How many innocent people should die to preserve the death penalty? I said: how many innocent people should be imprisoned to preserve imprisonment? It's just as straight-forward and loaded as your question.Except imprisonment can be revoked at any time given the right circumstances... death is (currently) a permanent situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) Except imprisonment can be revoked at any time given the right circumstances... death is (currently) a permanent situation. Correction: the remainder of the sentence can be revoked. You cannot give someone back the years of life they have lost while incarcerated. So the question still remains: how many innocent people should have their lives (any length of it) taken from them in order to justify taking life (any length of it) from the guilty? Edited January 15, 2014 by smashweights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) True, but those wrongly accused/convicted can be released and compensated for their time... how do you release and compensate for ones own death? Edited January 15, 2014 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 I would imagine, that the number of truly guilty put to death in comparison to innocent, should not even be close. Give me life in prison or death, and I will choose death. I like the island idea, sure are plenty out there to turn into some giant prison. Prisons are too full of both life without parole and petty criminals, both is a big problem in my opinion. Why not give the option of death, wonder how many would take it? Mixing hard criminals with petty criminals is a huge problem, better segregation needs to be in place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 True, but those wrongly accused/convicted can be released and compensated for their time... how do you release and compensate for ones own death? So how much money is 17 years of the life of an innocent person worth? Be sure to consider missing out on every family occasion, loved ones dying while imprisoned, friendships disappearing, missing your children growing up, losing most of your marketable job skills, etc worth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 I dunno, but that can be estimated or calculated, and they will still have some life left to enjoy it...What retribution is there for the death penalty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revelstoker Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 drawn and quartered. Who cares if it is slow and painful. I just feel bad for the people that have to administer what ever means. Bullets are cheap and people seem to like guns. Give them something they like, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 I dunno, but that can be estimated or calculated, and they will still have some life left to enjoy it...What retribution is there for the death penalty? The same compensation delivered to the family? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmutt Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 The judicial system does manage to convict an innocent person now and then, and nothing can be done that would make this process completely failsafe so long as people are involved.....the old 'to error is to be human' idea. It's inevitable, and truly unfortunate for all involved with false convictions. As long as the judge/jury can have their opinions swayed, this will continue to happen. All they can do is their best to keep facts on an even keel during the decisions and always entertain the possibilities of both sides to be as fair as possible.But, in my opinion....we never should've strayed from public hangings, canings, stockades, guillotines, etc for select criminals. Desensitizing the population to the what-ifs of committing crimes has surely not helped reduce the crime rates, and games/movies today are far more graphic than actuality, ergo there's no point in hiding it......so I say reinstate those old tactics to see if it helps to bring back a more civilized civilization ( meaning reduced crime since killing isn't exactly civil ). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 The judicial system does manage to convict an innocent person now and then, and nothing can be done that would make this process completely failsafe so long as people are involved.....the old 'to error is to be human' idea. It's inevitable, and truly unfortunate for all involved with false convictions. As long as the judge/jury can have their opinions swayed, this will continue to happen. All they can do is their best to keep facts on an even keel during the decisions and always entertain the possibilities of both sides to be as fair as possible.But, in my opinion....we never should've strayed from public hangings, canings, stockades, guillotines, etc for select criminals. Desensitizing the population to the what-ifs of committing crimes has surely not helped reduce the crime rates, and games/movies today are far more graphic than actuality, ergo there's no point in hiding it......so I say reinstate those old tactics to see if it helps to bring back a more civilized civilization ( meaning reduced crime since killing isn't exactly civil ). The last public hanging in the US was in 1936. The murder rate in the US is slightly lower now than it was in 1936. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmutt Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) The last public hanging in the US was in 1936. The murder rate in the US is slightly lower now than it was in 1936.Is that rate taken by the percentage of the population vs number of crimes committed though? Surely the U.S. is more populated now in comparison to almost 80 yrs ago, which would drive the rate down while allowing the number of crimes to inflate.But I get what you're saying, rate vs rate is still relavent Edited January 15, 2014 by Hellmutt 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 Is that rate taken by the percentage of the population vs number of crimes committed though? Surely the U.S. is more populated now in comparison to almost 80 yrs ago, which would drive the rate down while allowing the number of crimes to inflate.But I get what you're saying, rate vs rate is still relavent It is done correctly, murders per 100,000 people. Anything other than that would have been very Magleylike of me. It's actually quite amazing how low the murder rate is now compared to the 60's and 70's. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 It is done correctly, murders per 100,000 people. Anything other than that would have been very Magleylike of me. It's actually quite amazing how low the murder rate is now compared to the 60's and 70's. Wonder if the Mob's were a big reason for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zx3vfr Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Wonder if the Mob's were a big reason for that? My father in law was largely responsible for shutting down organized crime. Funny that a white person does not dare enter the area where the organized crime was. Organized crime kept the rift raff away. Street justice is a bitch but the gubberment couldn't stand the fact there was competition in keeping city streets safe.Ps. Privatize every single police department 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAC Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Wonder if the Mob's were a big reason for that? Haven't read the book myself but evidently according to Freakonomics, the legalization of abortion in 1973 started the trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat6183 Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Dead, bye bye. Said it took 10-15 minutes for him to full pass and for 10 mins or so there were snoring and other sounds. Hopefully he suffered a lot, just like the lady he sodomized and then slit her throat did. Just wish it would've happened years ago and we didn't have to spend tax dollars to keep him alive this long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 http://mobile.dispatch.com/webapp/news/article/lns/930855846/killer-struggles-gasps-repeatedly-under-new-2drug-combination;jsessionid=SdVBhFe4f2L1gw6iHJeqkTRT.web03 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 http://mobile.dispatch.com/webapp/news/article/lns/930855846/killer-struggles-gasps-repeatedly-under-new-2drug-combination;jsessionid=SdVBhFe4f2L1gw6iHJeqkTRT.web03 FWIW, doesn't mean he was aware or experienced it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 FWIW, not like it fucking matters... Fuck him, I hope he did feel it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 FWIW, not like it fucking matters... Fuck him, I hope he did feel it. Oh I agree. Just pointing it out since the news was going apeshit over him "gasping" "choking" and "making gurgly noises" today. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I maintain that our justice system should not be seeking vengeance. We are supposed to be BETTER than those we punish and execute. Torturing them, or even killing them immediately and painlessly, makes us the same as them. Or wouldn't you have a problem with a murderer who kills his victims quickly and painlessly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.