The Death Penalty Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[Col. Tartleton]

I'm of the opinion that we need to streamline the death penalty process, not eliminate it. Given the latest example of crazy person with guns shooting unarmed people for the fun of it, I think that this is more pressing than concerns about gun prohibition or restriction or whatever.

Prison should be for knuckleheads who cause trouble and white collar crooks. All the hardcore psychopaths and freaks who murder and rape people ought to get hanged. Not storing them for years in prison while they get every appeal known to man, taken outside and hanged.

I don't believe in life sentences without parole. If what you did means you can't be released back into the public, you should be executed.

If they kill the wrong guy one in a thousand times... That's life.

[Vanoi]

Sorry, its too expensive, doesn't deter crime, and has proven to have killed innocent people. Its outdated and needs to go.

[Timefool]

Sorry, its too expensive, doesn't deter crime, and has proven to have killed innocent people. Its outdated and needs to go.

Its expensive because its not streamlined. If a person has beyond a shadow of a doubt committed crimes that warrant the death penalty, like murdering multiple people, then they shouldn't spend years appealing and racking up legal fees, they should be executed.

Prison is punishment to a normal person, but if you lack the conscience to kill multiple people, you probably lack the reasoning to understand prison is bad.

[Vanoi]

If a person has beyond a shadow of a doubt committed crimes that warrant the death penalty, like murdering multiple people, then they shouldn't spend years appealing and racking up legal fees, they should be executed.

Thats the entire point of having a trial. To prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the committed those murders.

[Timefool]

Thats the entire point of having a trial. To prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the committed those murders.

Exactly. And once that trial is done and they are sentenced to the death penalty, they should not spend years appealing.

[Vanoi]

Exactly. And once that trial is done and they are sentenced to the death penalty, they should not spend years appealing.

Uhhh why not? Since when do prisoners not have the right to appeal their sentence? Maybe they thought they were not given a completely fair trial. What if they think the the jury was wrong and they are not guilty? what if they thought their sentencing was un-just?

Of and btw appeals aren't what make the death penalty so expensive. Its usually the trial itself. And the cost of keeping a prisoner on death row.

[Holger Danske]

Sorry, its too expensive, doesn't deter crime, and has proven to have killed innocent people. Its outdated and needs to go.

So it's more expensive to use a 5.56 on a guy than it is to lock him up for life? Explain.

[Vanoi]

So it's more expensive to use a 5.56 on a guy than it is to lock him up for life? Explain.

Did earlier. Look at my posts.

[Ak1980]

Did earlier. Look at my posts.

Your explanation is wrong, you totally ignore the cost of keeping prisoner in prison per year. Multiply by 15-20 years, it's cheaper to kill prisoner than letting them rot in prison.

[Eofor]

Your explanation is wrong, you totally ignore the cost of keeping prisoner in prison per year. Multiply by 15-20 years, it's cheaper to kill prisoner than letting them rot in prison.

That's why prison labour should be introduced instead of just having them sit around all day. Let prisoners earn their keep, but don't kill them just in case someone ed up or fabricated evidence.

[Vanoi]

Your explanation is wrong, you totally ignore the cost of keeping prisoner in prison per year. Multiply by 15-20 years, it's cheaper to kill prisoner than letting them rot in prison.

What? I'm not ignoring it. It's still cheaper than the death penalty. Its obvious you didn't read my link. the costs of the death penalty have to do with more than just his trial. His appeals, the investigation, and how long he stays on death row are also apart of the cost. And when you combine those they will cost more than a prisoner living his life in jail.

You also don't realize the cost to keep a prisoner in jail is not universal. States pay different amounts per prisoner. In Louisiana, its like 11,000 or 12,000 a year. Thats not much at all. while in New York it's like 40,000 a year.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.

The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).

The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case

The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.

Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.

These are a few more statistics on why the death penalty is so expensive.

Incarceration: Most death rows involve solitary confinement in a special facility. These require more security and other accommodations as the prisoners are kept for 23 hours a day in their cells.

Appeals: To minimize mistakes, every inmate is entitled to a series of appeals. The costs are borne at taxpayers' expense. These appeals are essential because some inmates have come within hours of execution before evidence was uncovered proving their innocence.

Trial: Death penalty trials can last over four times longer, requiring juror and attorney compensation, in addition to court personnel and other related costs.

Legal costs: Almost all people facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. The state must assign them two public defenders, and pay for the costs of the prosecution as well.

[Basil II the B.S]

Sorry, its too expensive,

Depends on how you do it. It can be definitely cheaper than a free life vacation in jail at the expenses of taxpayers. Now, that's ridiculous.

doesn't deter crime,

Because imprisonment does? Argument not valid.

and has proven to have killed innocent people.

An infinitely higher number of innocent people died because criminals turned to criminal activities again after serving time in prison. Death sentence would have saved them.
So, we are essentially left with a relatively limited number of mistakes of the justice system, against a huge one. I'd go for the smaller number.

Its outdated and needs to go.

Treating mass murderers like normal people is stupid and needs to go even before.

[Closetu]

Sorry, its too expensive, doesn't deter crime, and has proven to have killed innocent people. Its outdated and needs to go.

It's not expensive if you use just one bullet. This sicko bought 6000 ammo online. If he can afford it, then so can govt.

[AqD]

Sorry, its too expensive, doesn't deter crime, and has proven to have killed innocent people. Its outdated and needs to go.

It's not expensive, just one bullet. And if 'innocent victims' is a problem, jails should be abolished too.


Since many criminals do have long history of criminal records, death penalty should certainly help reduce crimes. It's simple logic to me:

Rob a bank and you die => no more robbery by you.

[Astaroth]

Because imprisonment does? Argument not valid.

The death penalty is not a BIGGER deterrent than life in prison. Seriously, who would get the death penalty? Almost exclusively crazy people, outcasts of society and those who have some sort of a breakdown. Once you have reached the point where you are willing to brutally murder someone something as rational as the thought of what might happen to you afterwards is usually not going to stop you. I doubt that even threatening to brutally torture every murderer to death would seriously affect crime rates significantly.

An infinitely higher number of innocent people died because criminals turned to criminal activities again after serving time in prison. Death sentence would have saved them.

The ones that would otherwise get the death penalty could as well serve the rest of their life in prison.

So, we are essentially left with a relatively limited number of mistakes of the justice system, against a huge one. I'd go for the smaller number.

There is a big difference between CRIMINALS killing innocent people and the STATE doing the same. The govt's responsibility not to actively kill innocents goes further than its responsibility to protect civilians against each other.

And if 'innocent victims' is a problem, jails should be abolished too.

I don't know about you, but I for my part would prefer it if I had to spend 5 or even 10 years innocently in prison than getting killed as an innocent person. The problem with the death penalty is that it is final.

Since many criminals do have long history of criminal records, death penalty should certainly help reduce crimes. It's simple logic to me:

If your crimes are bad enough to warrant a death penalty they could as well result in life imprisonment. Life in prison = no more crimes outside of it.

Also, by your logic we should kill everyone who ever committed any sort of crime.

Steal an old woman's handbag? Let's kill the criminal (or at least hack of his hands) and he won't do it again.

Nice barbaric medieval logic right there.

[Admiral Piett]

The death penalty is not a BIGGER deterrent than life in prison. Seriously, who would get the death penalty? Almost exclusively crazy people, outcasts of society and those who have some sort of a breakdown. Once you have reached the point where you are willing to brutally murder someone something as rational as the thought of what might happen to you afterwards is usually not going to stop you. I doubt that even threatening to brutally torture every murderer to death would seriously affect crime rates significantly.

The ones that would otherwise get the death penalty could as well serve the rest of their life in prison.

There is a big difference between CRIMINALS killing innocent people and the STATE doing the same. The govt's responsibility not to actively kill innocents goes further than its responsibility to protect civilians against each other.


I don't know about you, but I for my part would prefer it if I had to spend 5 or even 10 years innocently in prison than getting killed as an innocent person. The problem with the death penalty is that it is final.

If your crimes are bad enough to warrant a death penalty they could as well result in life imprisonment. Life in prison = no more crimes outside of it.

Also, by your logic we should kill everyone who ever committed any sort of crime.

Steal an old woman's handbag? Let's kill the criminal (or at least hack of his hands) and he won't do it again.

Nice barbaric medieval logic right there.

Imprisonment isn't a big deterrent of violent crime either. I think a better case the abolitionists would have is in regards to the separation from society principle and cost issues.

[Basil II the B.S]

The death penalty is not a BIGGER deterrent than life in prison. Seriously, who would get the death penalty? Almost exclusively crazy people, outcasts of society and those who have some sort of a breakdown. Once you have reached the point where you are willing to brutally murder someone something as rational as the thought of what might happen to you afterwards is usually not going to stop you. I doubt that even threatening to brutally torture every murderer to death would seriously affect crime rates significantly.

It's not a deterrent, but jail with possibility to leave due to good conduct or relatively short imprisonment (even 20 years is short if you are young) works even less.

The ones that would otherwise get the death penalty could as well serve the rest of their life in prison.

A life vacation at the expense of taxpayers. They do the damage, we pay. No thank you.

There is a big difference between CRIMINALS killing innocent people and the STATE doing the same.
The govt's responsibility not to actively kill innocents goes further than its responsibility to protect civilians against each other.

It's also the government responsibility to prevent criminals from doing further criminal actions. And due to the lack of death penalty, the government is failing badly. Not being able to protect innoncent people when you are in charge is just as bad as killing them. In both cases an innocent dies. Lack of death penalty so far caused more innocent people to die than mistakes in applying it. Way more.

I don't know about you, but I for my part would prefer it if I had to spend 5 or even 10 years innocently in prison than getting killed as an innocent person. The problem with the death penalty is that it is final.

In that case we just need to make sure it's used in cases of overwhelming evidence. Just like the recent shooting episode. There is literally not a single possibility of being wrong. Death sentence is way better option than life imprisonment.

If your crimes are bad enough to warrant a death penalty they could as well result in life imprisonment. Life in prison = no more crimes outside of it.

And society pays for you. Not sure in the US, but in my country having a criminal in prison costs on average 117 euros per day. The average worker doesn't earn that much money.

[Astaroth]

Imprisonment isn't a big deterrent of violent crime either. I think a better case the abolitionists would have is in regards to the separation from society principle and cost issues.

If one is willing to murder another (and crazy/desperate enough to go through with it etc.) then there is no real way of deterring him anyway.

But the deterrent argument is brought forward by the pro-death penalty crowd, not by me.

It's not a deterrent, but jail with possibility to leave due to good conduct or relatively short imprisonment (even 20 years is short if you are young) works even less.

It really makes no significant difference at all. If the shunning of society, the thought of not being a free man for several decades, spending years amongst convicts, possibly being raped and having terrible psychological problems as a result (some or all of those factors) don't stop you from killing others then nothing will.

The "death penalty is a good deterrent" argument really doesn't pull at all.

A life vacation at the expense of taxpayers. They do the damage, we pay. No thank you.

1. It's not a vacation. And even if they have books etc., it still isn't. Seriously. Do you know what happens in prison? Have you seen the rape stats? Calling it a vacation or enjoyable at all is just silly. Even if jail was like a luxury hotel (and it isn't) it still wouldn't be enjoyable to be locked up for decades in the single place. Not being able to do what you want and move around freely (even if you are in a "golden cage" -- which prison isn't) is a terrible punishment for ANYONE.
2. Protecting your citizens from harm always costs money. The military does.The police does. The legal system does. And prisons do. Following your logic, why not abolish prisons and the legal system altogether? Let's just execute every criminal via police/military on the spot.

It's also the government responsibility to prevent criminals from doing further criminal actions. And due to the lack of death penalty, the government is failing badly. Not being able to protect innoncent people when you are in charge is just as bad as killing them. In both cases an innocent dies. Lack of death penalty so far caused more innocent people to die than mistakes in applying it. Way more.

Did you not see my post or did you simply not understand it?

The extremely powerful government itself ACTIVELY killing defenseless innocents is MUCH WORSE than the same govt failing to protect a few people.

If the government just protects its people not as well as it should, then you can at least try to protect yourself or petition for more safety. But if the government (or the judge/jury) decides to execute you as an innocent man then there is NOTHING at all you can do. No-one you can turn to.

Don't you see the difference?

And society pays for you. Not sure in the US, but in my country having a criminal in prison costs on average 117 euros per day. The average worker doesn't earn that much money.

That's the price of living in a civilised society where the government doesn't slaughter innocents just so simple-minded people in rural Texas can shout 'merica yeah.

[The Gurkhan]

Sorry, its too expensive, doesn't deter crime, and has proven to have killed innocent people. Its outdated and needs to go.

Replace 'deter crime' with 'doesn't deter [insert usual justifications]' and one could say precisely the same thing about war.

[Facupay]

Don't you worry about the possibility that the state, being inherently corrupt and incompetent, may end up killing you wrongfully if you grant them the power of life and death over individuals?