This is why I'm for the death penalty.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Im in favor of death penalty and long prison sentences because the high cost of error of releasing known murderers that may not be as rehabilitated that we would like to think they are far exceeds the cost of having them in prison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't this be achieved by having no chance of release for members who commit a certain type of crime (with the exception, of course, that if they are found to be innocent the go free)?

[ QUOTE ]
Im talking about my defense of the death penalty, and I assure you it has nothing to do with revenge, its what I feel is the proper solution for the society in dealing with some murderers. I believe that the judges in the trials and appeals needed before someone can be executed are level headed and therefore will avoid sentencing people to death based on pity revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the cost/risk of them committing future crimes can be eliminated by having no parole eligibility and the cost of going through the rigorous process you describe above has been shown to exceed the cost of keeping someone in prison for life. What do you gain by killing them?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great. I oppose the death penalty as a form punishment because in a modern society it has high cost of error (ethically), enormous costs and little utility. I oppose most long prison sentences for the same reasons.

And then you can debate against that if you wish, and how you can avoid revenge casting a fairly heavy shadow on the death penalty arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im in favor of death penalty and long prison sentences because the high cost of error of releasing known murderers that may not be as rehabilitated that we would like to think they are far exceeds the cost of having them in prison.

Im talking about my defense of the death penalty, and I assure you it has nothing to do with revenge, its what I feel is the proper solution for the society in dealing with some murderers. I believe that the judges in the trials and appeals needed before someone can be executed are level headed and therefore will avoid sentencing people to death based on pity revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of your goals would not be met by life in prison without the possibility of parole? I would argue that life in prison w/out possibility of parole + all proceeds from prisoner's required "work" in prison to go to victims' family would meet your goals equally well and provide an added benefit over the death penalty.

Too often i think death penalty support is just a masked frustration with the current system of criminal justice (i.e. prison is too easy, too many appeals, etc.)

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im in favor of death penalty and long prison sentences because the high cost of error of releasing known murderers that may not be as rehabilitated that we would like to think they are far exceeds the cost of having them in prison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't this be achieved by having no chance of release for members who commit a certain type of crime (with the exception, of course, that if they are found to be innocent the go free)?

[ QUOTE ]
Im talking about my defense of the death penalty, and I assure you it has nothing to do with revenge, its what I feel is the proper solution for the society in dealing with some murderers. I believe that the judges in the trials and appeals needed before someone can be executed are level headed and therefore will avoid sentencing people to death based on pity revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the cost/risk of them committing future crimes can be eliminated by having no parole eligibility and the cost of going through the rigorous process you describe above has been shown to exceed the cost of keeping someone in prison for life. What do you gain by killing them?

[/ QUOTE ]

The last paragraph that you quoted was a response to tame deuces that also opposes long prison sentences (In Norway the longest sentence you can get is 21 years, and in reality that means you are free after 13-14 years max), while Im in favor of life without parole and also death penalty in some cases.

What we gain from killing them? Well they are out of the system, and not a concern to anyone annymore. When they are executed they are finally history, they are not part of society or this world anymore, and we can move on.

And Im not saying that the death penalty is a neccessity, but I feel it is appropiate at times. If someone is sentenced to life in prison with 0 % chance of getting out we have made sure that society are safe from him just as much as when he is executed, but I do feel there are times when having the person executed is the most appropiate solution.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
So prison when we are "beyond reasonable doubt", and death penalty when "there is no doubt what so ever". Videotape, DNA, confession and such sometimes makes the case 100% slam dunk, and there is no way whatsoever that anyone will think that the person is innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely. I'm against the death penalty in all cases. The innocent-probability in a case shouldn't decide if he is executed or not.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]

The last paragraph that you quoted was a response to tame deuces that also opposes long prison sentences (In Norway the longest sentence you can get is 21 years, and in reality that means you are free after 13-14 years max), while Im in favor of life without parole and also death penalty in some cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Sure, the basic maximum sentence you can get in Norway is 21 years, but additionally there is something called "forvaring" (English term?) that allows life sentences. Forvaring can be extended until infinity every 5 years.

[Bedreviter]

Yeah, thats why I asked you if your feelings on the matter was moral or practical. As it is about moral it was kind of redundant to even discuss the practibility of it as you would not find it acceptable in any cases.

[Thug Bubbles]

[ QUOTE ]
innocent people get killed by the death penality though, not just bad people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically not a single executed person has been proven with DNA evidence to have been innocent of the convicted crime.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
innocent people get killed by the death penality though, not just bad people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically not a single executed person has been proven with DNA evidence to have been innocent of the convicted crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

This means absolutely nothing (for a wealth of reasons.)

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
What we gain from killing them? Well they are out of the system, and not a concern to anyone annymore. When they are executed they are finally history, they are not part of society or this world anymore, and we can move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

A life sentence puts takes them out of society as well, at lower cost to society than a super extensive conviction/appeals process that even you admit is necessary to ensure only the "right" people are given the death sentence. I'd rather have them "in the system" (but off my streets) at significantly lower cost and with no risk that they will be released.

[ QUOTE ]
And Im not saying that the death penalty is a neccessity, but I feel it is appropiate at times. If someone is sentenced to life in prison with 0 % chance of getting out we have made sure that society are safe from him just as much as when he is executed, but I do feel there are times when having the person executed is the most appropiate solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes execution "more appropriate" when you admit that safety objectives can still be met at lower cost through life sentences without parole?

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who has so little value for another human being's life does not deserve to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just thought I'd bump this so it could get a little more love. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]