Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Someone has posted about the cost comparison of housing v appeals (was it in this thread, or another similar one?). Housing was quite a bit cheaper.

ehBeth
It wouldn't be if only those sentenced to death were those where there is no possibility to have been covicted wrongly. And they were not allowed to play the system.

Yes, but this isn't so much a cost of capital punishment than it is a cost of a petition process designed to make the punishment hard to execute. Where convicts are exeuted days after the Court's decision, litigation and imprisonment are both much cheaper than in the US. (I understand that's how Britain did it before it abolished capital punishment.) Would you be more likely to favor capital punishment if the American system was "fixed" after the model of the old English system? I certainly wouldn't, and I strongly suspect that neither would you.

"Are there no prisons?"

"Plenty of prisons."

"And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still, I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?"

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course, I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude, a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!"

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone, since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Ah yes, the tender mercies of English justice.

At the time of the American Revolution, there were more than 150 capital offenses in the English "justice" system, ranging from petty larceny to treason and lèse majesté. In Beyond Good and Evil, ol' Freddy Nietzsche lists nine or ten things which criminal justice accomplishes, other than its stated purposes. Heading the list is vengeance. That's what capital punishment is all about. I once transcribed the daily journal of a man who emmigrated to the United States from England in 1831. Before taking ship, he and his cousins went to a public entertainment--a hanging. He commented on the condemned man's insistence in his final words from the scaffold that he was innocent. The writer then stated that he was obviously lying--that he was guilty, else he would not have been hanged.

We had a revolution to throw off the detritus of a corrupt old world. It often seems, however, that this is forgotten. Given that we can usually not be completely assured that the convicted man or woman is in fact guilty, i oppose the death penalty.

That does not mean that i "support" those who are convicted of murder, which is the hateful contention Lusatian is advancing here. His bile is evident in every thread he posts. It is very ironic in this thread, though, given his love of the thought of indiscriminate slaughter on a vast scale.

Setanta
There are times when there is absolutely no chance of the individual to have been wrongly convicted. In those instances would you still be against capital punishment.

I thought you were going to say "Bah, humbug!" But it might have been too obvious for your taste.

I assume that was a question. As a personal matter, no, i would not object. However, Lash has made a point which i think ought not to be forgotten, which is what executing people says about us, and what it does to our society.

In one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln said: "As i would not be a slave, so i would not be a master."

I would paraphrase that: "As i would not wish to be executed, so i would not wish to be the executioner."

You've got that right.

Not only am I in favor of the death penalty,I would like to see it carried out more often.
People say that if I had to pull the switch I would be opposed to it,but that isnt true.

I would favor setting up electric bleachers,and putting everyone condemned to death on it at one shot.
IU would gladly pull the switch on them.

mysterman for god and dictator!

sad.

God? No,I dont want that power.

Dictator,if only for one week would be a good idea.

I could end the drug trade in 60 days,end serious crime in a week,and restore some sanity to our govt in a few days.
It wouldnt be hard to do,but everyone is afraid to do it.

I would be more then happy to explain how to do it,if anyone is interested.

go ahead.

Ending the drug trade and drug smuggling is really quite simple.
Allow the USN and the Coast Guard to sink EVERY vessel that is caught smuggling drugs.
DO NOT arrest the crew,let them go down with their ship.

All drug dealers would face immediate,on the spot execution,once they are caught dealing.
An undercover officer would make a buy,then show his badge,pull his weapon,and executer the dealer right there..

Users would face public humiliation,unless they committed a crime to get the money to buy drugs.
Then their punishmeny would be determined by the kind of crime,and if they killed anyone or not.
If they killed someone to get the money,they face the death penalty also.

Ending serious crime would be just as easy.
A person that commits a crime has no rights,until they are arrested.
In other words,if someone mugs a little old lady,and a crowd chases them down and beats them to death,then thats to bad.

Once they are arrested,they are entitled to all of the protections of the law.
IF they are convicted,then they are entitled to the rights I tell them they can have.
In other words,thery get 3 hots and a cot,and the right to turn big rocks into little rocks.
Also,there would be NO PAROLE.
If they get sentenced to 20 years,then 20 years to the day after they go into prison,they walk out.

Then,we make all politicians and the congress an UNPAID position.
It was never intended to be a lifetime position by the founding fathers.So,we make it unpaid,and set term limits on EVERY political office.
We also do not allow politicians to exempt themselves from the laws they pass.

That sort of solution sounds cool until the day some cop with some sort of a grudge or a quota to make blows YOUR ass away and then simply plants the requisite ounce of grass or whatever on your corpse. Who could do anything about it and what would they do?

150 Years ago there were no drug laws in America and there were no meaningful or overwhelming drug problems. How bright should anybody have to be to figure that one out?

Of course, there were also no gun laws, other than the second ammendment...

Thats true,but in 1855 (150 years ago),we had just finished a civil war,and there were many other problems in the country.
Yes,crime was not as bad then,but then everyone that could was going west also.

Its difficult to compare the US in 1855 to todays US.
They are two different countries.

The US has the biggest prison population in the world, and the highest number of inmates as a proportion of its population.

Why wouldn't this make the country safer?

You could pick any part of the 19'th century, it doesn't matter. There were no drug laws because the United States was still a free country.

The amount of drugs which a typical druggie uses in a day would cost a dollar if produced and sold here in the states in a free market. The same drugs often cost the druggie several hundred dollars a day and, since the druggie deals at a 10% fence, he's having to commit several thousand dollars worth of crime to get the several hundred dollars to buy the dollars worth of drugs.

Think real hard. That's basically a dollar's worth of chemicals being transformed into several thousand dollars worth of crime times the number of those a$$holes out there times three hundred and sixty five, all through the magic of stupid laws.

What country on this planet is supposed to be able to afford that?