No, you’re reading that shit into it. But since you had to make an issue of it, well, if the people who commit murder and rape are poor and black, then I guess we’re going to have to execute people who are poor and black. Regarding race, if you look at this list of executed offenders in Texas, it’s pretty damn diverse. It represents the population pretty evenly.
As to the poverty issue - I’m of the opinion that upper-class murderers should be killed just like lower-class ones. It’s not MY fault that the powers-that-be don’t see it that way.
The state has to pay for his legal defense (i.e., appeals) if he doesn’t have money for an attorney, correct? Maybe that’s the cost they’re referring to.
(again, my underlining). $253 million dollars spent on a death penalty system that produced 0 executions over two decades doesn’t sound particularly cost-effective…
Well, it’s bullshit that they use the death penalty that way - it’s useless as it’s currently administered, both as a deterrent and as a form of “revenge.” I think, and have always thought, that the death penalty should be carried out on the day of the sentence, with either a bullet or hanging, whichever the condemned chooses. I think if we did it like this, there would be far, far fewer murders. But that’s just me. I know it’s very backwards and ignorant and unenlightened and whatever…but something just tells me it would be more effective than letting the fucker sit on “death” row for 30 years.
The tiny number of innocent people that might accidentally be executed under this policy would be nothing compared to the number of innocent murder victims that would be saved because criminals would actually be AFRAID of the death penalty, instead of seeing Mumia Abu-Jamal’s example and viewing a death sentence as an opportunity to make a political martyr out of yourself and a mockery of the justice system.
All of the examples you cite are different in that governments do these in a way that hopefully benefits the broader public. Putting people to death (call it murder, call it capital punishment) does not have any broader public benefit and as cited by others is more costly than more humane alternatives.
Bernard Kerik himself, former Police Commissioner of New York City, who served time as a security guard in Saudi Arabia, wrote admiringly of the beheading-in-the-public-square method of execution that he saw being used there. He claimed that crimes such as murder and rape were extremely rare there.
Is Saudi Arabia the country that America should be emulating? Probably not.
Is a lower rate of murder and rape a good thing? I’d say so.
Should all Americans be entitled to due process, and a fair trial? Yes.
If executions were carried out immediately and publicly, would it scare the shit out of potential criminals? I think it would.
I know this is a really, really unpopular viewpoint, but I really think it has some merit.
And if it turns out they were innocent, too bad eh ? After all, if they deserved to live they’d have had the money to hire a good lawyer.
Don’t be silly. Do you think that criminals expect to get caught ? Do you think they are dumb enough to believe that being executed has to do with anything other than your bank account and skin tone ?
Criminals( Murderers especially, I’d imagine, as they seem much less self-restrained than your average criminal!) are most probably only afraid of the Death Penalty once they are actually caught; by which time, it is far too late. Criminals, by their very nature, don’t think about getting caught too much; it is counter-productive to the job at hand if you spend more time contemplating getting caught than getting away with it. Just think about how many dumb-assed criminals take hostages… they’ve already been caught near enough, and they STILL think they can get away with it.
Der Trihs - what would YOU propose to do to punish criminals who have committed murder? People who shoot some poor guy in the back of the head, execution style, over 20 dollars? Worthless shitheads who unload a shotgun on their ex-wife? Sick perverts who rape, mutilate and murder little girls?
In your ideal world, you don’t believe that we should be able to protect ourselves from crime (you’ve said that the Second Amendment is “useless,”) and you don’t think that murderers should be executed. Maybe I’m crazy but it seems to me that you favor giving murderers way more rights than they deserve.
Also, you can talk till the cows come home about your poor, dark-skinned criminals getting the death penalty. Bear in mind that most of their victims were also poor and dark-skinned.
Sorry to butt in guys, but my suggestion is that anyone who deliberately takes another persons life, forfeits their own rights immediately. But instead of going down the revenge line, and taking their life also, the remainder of their life should be put towards something useful. Use these people for final stage medical exams; test out bullet-proof sunglasses on them; put their miserable fucking lives to some positive use, at least. I know there is still the chance of an innocent being found guilty, but at least that injustice would still be reaping a positive benefit.
Toss them in prison and keep them there. Where, among other things, they can be released if they turn out to be innocent.
:rolleyes: Saying that I don’t think something will work isn’t at all the same as saying that I don’t think we should be allowed to protect ourselves. And again, this isn’t about murder, but race, class and gender.
Assuming that they actually were their victims; and not someone else’s victims. You have far more trust in our system than I do.
How is it barbaric? Murderers are among the most societal damage causing individuals on the planet, and all we are currently doing is killing them or banging them behind bars for the rest of their lives. Why shouldn’t society be able to use these individuals to further our collective knowledge base?
Some people are going to die unfairly if we outlaw capital punishment. 1.2% of all murderers commit another murder within three years after their release from prison (cite). Other murderers kill while serving their sentences, or escape(cite-PDF). We have to accept philosophically that some people are going to die unfairly in the name of social order, with the DP or without it. The only question is how to reduce that number as much as possible.
No person executed in the US since the reinstitution of the death penalty in the seventies has been shown to be factually innocent. Yes, I know all about the DNA thing - none of those people were executed.
X number of people will be unfailrly killed by repeat/escaped/incarcerated murderers. Y number will be wrongfully executed. The question is if X is larger than Y, or Y larger than X. The most moral option is to choose the system with the smallest number.
You don’t see a contradiction there? Due process includes a right of appeal, to argue that the judge or jury made a mistake. But that interferes with the “shoot’em now” approach.
Do we accept that a person who carries out a crime that warrants a death penalty is somehow mentally different from people who don’t carry out such crimes? If so, do we want to learn anything about what made this person act so dangerously different to the average member of public, or do we just want to make sure THAT particular bad person, never does it again?
Yeah I know, there is a contradiction. That’s what I’m getting at. The concept of “due process” is nowadays being interpreted as “you can wait 30 years on “death” row, and have your own radio show too.” It’s bullshit. I think it should be up to the judge whether or not the condemned man gets to have appeals or not, but I think he should have the option of saying, “do it now.”
Like I said before - I know this is a really, really unpopular viewpoint. I know I’m going to be viewed as a barbarian by some people. I accept this, I accept it fully. I really think that if the death penalty were run the way I’m suggesting, it would work.