Death penalty no doubt.
I sincerely hope neither of you have reproduced, or hope to reproduce in the future.
From this thread -
I am often taken a little aback when people make statements that are not only false, but can be shown to be false by posts from earlier in the same thread.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree that it costs more to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life. I think that should be changed. If it were cheaper the execute than to incarcerate, I still wouldn’t be using that as a reason.
The reason that it is more expensive is the lengthy appeals process. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. This does not mean railroading the accused. It means protecting the rights of all by judging and deciding quickly. A defendent walks the line regarding a speedy trial. They may push for a quick trial to catch the prosecution who has had little time to prepare. Howeverm they often use delaying tactics to erode the prosecution’s case. After the first trial, the delaying tactic is preferential.
The costs increase as the convicted acquires extra lawyers (with strict experience requirements that delay trial until counsel is available), extra security, segregated sections in individual cells, repeated detailed tests, and appeals clogging the courts.
Bring the evidence to the first trial and allow one appeal to refute the evidence that could not be refuted in the first trial.
My like or dislike has nothing to do with it. The threat is the judgement that caused you to remove them from society in the first place. I think it’s more humane for all concerned to execute than to lock someone in a hole until they die.
Revenge is not the motivation. Any legal system may fail to administer the laws in a fair and even-handed manner. It is only bad when they overwhelm the system’s purpose in protecting its citizens. So, if the punishment were evenhanded then the death penalty would be okay? Gotcha. I agree. Wow, we’re on the same side! 
And until then let’s work on correcting the evenhandedness of the system, and not throw it out because it doesn’t obtain some moral ideal.
Look at Major Nidal Hasan - he wanted to do this, he wasn’t under duress, he committed the act, it can’t be fixed, he is unrepentant and unchanging. He should have had a quick trial a year ago (and given an appeal if he could really think of Some mitigating factor). But then he should have been convicted months ago and executed unless there’s some evidence that showed him innocent.
I am often taken a little aback when people make statements that are not only false, but can be shown to be false by posts from earlier in the same thread.
[/QUOTE]
I have stopped being taken aback when you tilt at straw-filled windmills. Perhaps you should try reading villa’s post again, with particular emphasis on this part (my bolding):
I support the death penalty for the most serious offenses. This qualifies. Some people are just too evil and/or unreformable to be allowed to live in a civilized society under the rule of law.
I recommend Scott Turow’s Ultimate Punishment for a short, thoughtful, well-written exploration of the pros and cons of the death penalty.
I am never taken aback when you pull quotes out of context and remove their links to make it harder to backtrack and prove that they’re actually demonstrating the opposite of what you’re claiming.
Let’s look at the full quote properly breadcrumbed, shall we?
Oh, hey, look at that. I wasn’t saying that we should keep people in prison for life because it’s cheaper than killing them; I was pointing out that aruvqan’s argument that we should execute them because it’s cheaper was completely misinformed. Ignorant, you might say. Hrm, I feel like that should remind me of some sort of motto associated with this site.
Which is, in fact, exactly what **villa **said. People who are against the death penalty *don’t *go around claiming we should get rid of it because it’s cheaper to keep people in prison for life. People who are in favor of capital punishment make the argument that it’s cheaper, and then we simply point out that they are dead (heh) wrong. Simply pointing out that an argument is based on false information doesn’t mean that you’re necessarily insisting that its opposite must be true.
The only way to change it is to remove their rights. If you would like to advocate such, which judging from the rest of your post’s suggested “improvements” is exactly what you’re doing, I would politely suggest that you find a country with a criminal “justice” system that is more in line with your values. I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year.
You already did. “Time, money, resources, etc.” Emphasis added.
The people on death row who are still fighting their convictions would apparently disagree with you.
Yes. Of course, for the punishment to be even, you would also have to execute the people who executed the murderers. And then execute their executors. And so on. Eventually, we would be left with no country. But it would be fair and equal.
Define “most serious” in a way that’s as legally viable as possible.
1.) Why?
2.) Define “too evil” or “too unreformable” and the appropriate methods for determining such.
I just deleted the exact same post on preview.
I even said “shall we?”
Hearts to you.
Wow. My post above came out all kinds of not right. Here’s how it was supposed to look:
I have stopped being taken aback when you tilt at straw-filled windmills. Perhaps you should try reading villa’s post again, with particular emphasis on this part (my bolding):
I know I figured it out okay. FYI, when the quote formatting gets fucked, especially in a way that screws up attribution, you can report your own post and ask a mod to fix it.
Really? I would pay to have that job.
And how long have you known that you get pleasure from causing pain to other human beings?
I refer the honorable member to the answers from my honorable friends Shot From Guns and Really Not All That Bright.
I put “other.” I’d like to know what the stats are concerning recidivism among rapist/arsonist/murderers after various lengths of prison time.
Anyone know?
BTW, the judge in the Steven Hayes trial ruled against a motion that the defense be allowed to tell the sentencing jury that it’s cheaper to incarcerate him for life than to give him the death penalty.
I’d say that’s fair. “What’s cheaper” shouldn’t be what determines someone’s punishment. Sucks, because there are indubitably people on the jury as misinformed as those in this thread who are basing their decisions on that “fact,” but them’s the breaks.
Briefly: some studies show very little relationship between sentencing length/harshness and lowered recidivism rates. Some studies show a negative relationship; i.e. that punishments which keep the convict as connected to the outside world as possible and which aren’t extremely long tend to do better at reducing recidivism than harsher measures. While it isn’t widely agreed that extremely lenient sentences actually reduce recidivism, no study that I’m aware of has concluded that the opposite is true.
Update: the jury voted for the death penalty for Steven Hayes.
I could not agree more.