Tricky to kill people on parole when you’re sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, I hear.
I suppose they might kill someone in prison. No problem; stick them in solitary confinement.
Yeah - I’m not a particular fan of state sponsored murder, and even less a fan of the barbaric ghouls who sit around the guillotine knitting.
Unfortunately too many people express that exact sentiment for it to be obvious I was joking.
Well, and this is the only thing I will say in defense of the pro-state sponsored murder people, then you get filthy lefties like me who start campaigning against that punishment.
Life imprisonment in solitary without possibility of parole is probably unconstitutional, I’d say, as cruel and unusual punishment. Note though I think the death penalty, while barbaric, unconscionable, and unconstitutional as applied, isn’t unconstitutional per se.
I suspect if you gave convicts the choice of one or the other you’d rather quickly find out which one they think is more cruel, and it’s not life in solitary.
ETA: Solitary confinement isn’t even the only option. There’s also confinement from the general population for dangerous offenders, etc.
That fails to account for the “for the same crime” element, however. A serial killer is incredibly likely to get the death penalty and race is unlikely to influence that outcome either way; it seems to me that whites outnumber blacks in serial killings by more than they do in the general population. Likewise, if there’s an abundance of mitigating circumstances and the crime is not a sensational one, these circumstances are going to be more influential than the defendant’s race and to whatever extent race plays a role, there aren’t going to be many executions of anyone.
What studies have found is that for murders of what could be classified as a middle range of extremity, i.e. not a worse-case horror story murder, but one with some aggravating circumstances, race plays a much larger role. At either end of the extremity spectrum, there’s no increased likelihood of execution associated with being black, but in between those extremes, being black is bad news. Including all of that data and looking at murder in the aggregate doesn’t really give the total picture of how race influences sentencing. There’s a chart and some discussion here.
As for the most recent developments in the “dialog,” I’ll just point out again that it would be super if the Elizabethans among us could maybe huddle together and make up their minds about whether you think we’re killing people for public safety, to save money, or, you know, because of what is obviously the real reason we’re doing it, as evidenced by the “Thanks for killing a person I’ve never met, never will, and don’t actually know a god damned thing about!” You keep saying there are practical justifications and then following them immediately with these fucking hooligan chants.
[QUOTE=Shot From Guns]
Oh, you mean the instruction that is (a) irrelevant because our laws aren’t based on the fucking Bible and (b) intended to limit disgusting blood feuds? You know, the law that they decided needed to be put into place to rein in people like you?
[/QUOTE]
And hell, even if that is the source from which we’re getting our notions of criminal justice, it’s kind of hard to miss the second act, where the hero mentions once or twice that this kind of insanity isn’t really our job. I’m pretty sure that’s kind of the moral of the story. 'Course, they put him down like a dog, too. And he rose to kill again.
Well, it’s not just about cruelty… but I don’t disagree. However, I think it is pretty categoric that the death penalty isn’t per se unconstitutional, as the document itself clearly contemplates it. However, I life in solitary probably would be. I’m feeling too lazy to research it, but I think it would be struck.
But there are indeed other options - like the Supermax route, for example.
So will imprisoning them for life. You know what we don’t do in this country? Punish people for crimes they haven’t committed yet. Or else you might as well argue that we should execute *me *so that I don’t kill anyone in the first place. Can’t be too safe, you know. Imagine if we’d killed these two before they’d committed this crime! Wouldn’t the world be swell?
Ah, yes, and he’s invented a device to take the life of the murderers and transfer it back to his family. I think I saw that episode of Babylon 5.
And **villa **was parodying them. Poe’s Law and all that, but if you search for her name on *just this page *you can see she’s been one of the staunch anti-death penalty people in this thread.
Nice try, but I’ve already asked this question repeatedly and gotten zero responses, outside of one guy who pulled up examples of people who’d just escaped, without any details on further crimes.
No, that was the people of Atlantis.
Yes, but I don’t know how to search threads or even use the Control-F function in a web browser.
Nice try, but I’ve already asked this question repeatedly and gotten zero responses, outside of one guy who pulled up examples of people who’d just escaped, without any details on further crimes.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t let you do ALL the work, Shot. You might get carpal tunnel.
Snark aside, I’m not opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds; I think I wrote upthread that the kille rof hte woman and her little girls should be dropped in the nearest live volcano. I’m against the death penalty because I see no way to administer it justly without magic (read: imaginary and probably impossible) tech.
If I’m reading you correctly, then nope. It could be struck down in the near future, but up 'til now it’s not only OK, it actually happens.
As of yesterday I am anti-death penalty. I never used to be against it. Heck, I was a supporter of the death penalty for a long time.
For the past 2 weeks I’ve been sitting on a jury. One of the charges we had was possession of a firearm. Based on the evidence presented and the way the law was written we found one of the three men on trial guilty for the weapon possession. As our fore person read the verdicts for the first of the three men and read off the not guilty charge under possession of a firearm his face lit up like Christmas. The second guy stood up and we found him guilty of the firearm possession and he looked at the first guy with an expression that said, “You son of a bitch!” My stomach dropped and I knew based on their facial expressions alone we were wrong on that charge. The thing of it is though that the evidence and the laws lined up in such a way that even with the knowledge that it wasn’t his gun I would still find him guilty and his friend innocent every single time because as a juror I would have no other choice. I know we did the right thing. I know that given the rules, evidence, and witnesses the case was clear as to who possessed what. I won’t lose any sleep at night over our verdict. But I know that I could never support the death penalty again because even with the best, most clear cut evidence available a jury can still be wrong.
Hmmmm. I did not know that. I’m trying to think if there is a difference between a sentence of Life in solitary without parole and this, which seems to be more an administrative thing. Not that it makes a difference to the person (and also the administrative aspect of it is disturbing in a whole different way).
Oh hey, I remember reading that thread. I don’t think I ever responded, though.
And it was also a *Babylon 5 *episode.
Yes, clearly, Ctrl+F is something you haven’t the faintest idea how to start figuring out how to do.
On the plus side, if we have enough people asking the same questions enough times without getting them answered, maybe they’ll eventually be embarassed into agreeing with us.
Re-reading it I saw that you never responded. I have been crying continuously since then and have had to manually refill my tear ducts thrice.
The world does not and never has required both Babylon 5 and Deep Space Nine, and the latter has hotter chicks (though stupider non-arc episodes).
I know how to use avatars on message boards that allow them, though.
On the plus side, if we have enough people asking the same questions enough times without getting them answered, maybe they’ll eventually be embarassed into agreeing with us.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that will work, but we can point out how they’re full of crap on the issue.
Surely there must be a more efficient method.
I beg to differ. We have but geekery enough, and time.
How dare you force your lolcat hotdogs on unsuspecting strangers, etc. etc.
Project Echo Chamber Status: Success.
All you people saying “life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty,” do you really want a justice system that runs on economics? It would be cheaper still not to try people at all. Maybe we should let criminals free so they can work and contribute to our economic society instead of costing us money by housing and feeding them in prison!:rolleyes:
As Dr. Petit pointed out, economics should never govern justice.
As I answered to Shodan, who strangely disappeared after getting shown he didn’t have the gotcha moment he thought he did, people don’t suggest LWPOP over death because of the cost.
The cost argument is raised because the pro-death people bring it up first - they maintain that we shouldn’t be spending limited resources on keeping people alive who have committed such crimes. So the natural response is to use, you know, facts, and demonstrate it costs more under the current US system to execute people than to keep them alive.
It isn’t a positive argument against the death penalty. It is a response to an attempted argument by those who would have the state turn into an instrument of revenge.
Unfortunately, demonstrating the facts isn’t enough. The argument usually goes:
Pro-death person: “I don’t see why my taxes should pay to keep that (black) murderer alive.”
Anti-death person: “Well, actually, you will find that life without parole is cheaper than executing people.”
Pro-death person: “That’s only because of all the appeals. Convict them, give them one appeal, then shoot them. They wouldn’t be convicted in the first place if they weren’t guilty.”
I was going to respond, Annie, but **villa **nailed it (as usual).
I didn’t agree with you until you posted a picture of a green person rolling his eyes at the version of ‘our’ arguments that exists in your imagination.
Now that another of your irrelevant diversions has been addressed (second time for this one, in fact), would you like to address any of the points that “all you people” have actually been making in this thread? Maybe pick a justification and stick to it?
If it will make you happy to hear this…
Yes. Yes we should. The idea of warehousing people in postgraduate academies for crime has been an absolute failure in solving crime.
We should rely on prison far less than we currently do, and we should always be seeking, with every inmate, to bring them to the level where they can be released to be a productive member of society without endangering others.
I accept this might never happen for some, but it will happen for far more people than the system currently allows. California is seeing this with its ridiculous three strikes laws, having to encarcerate (at ludicrous cost) multiple completely harmless elderly prisoners.
That’s a plan.