Derailed thread

[D'Espana]

Well, at least here in Spain the medical system could work well, if everyone uses it wisely. In fact, that's the reason why it's just "could" and not an actual statement: many don't use it as they should, and it has also many flaws and a lot of corruption in it. But it has potential, that for sure.

And about the death penalty, even if it is more expensive, it really eliminates problems. Really. And of course, if it is more expensive, then make it cheaper. They do it each day for things that really deserve what is being paid for them, then why not for something that just affects criminals? It's not as if every needle had to be sterilized, or even use them at all. I'm sure a bullet well placed can do the same effect.

[Vellos]

I seriously doubt its more expensive than 3 meals a day, boarding, security systems, guards, injuries, and extreme stress for all involved for anywhere between 15 to 50 years.

lol, yes. Yes it actually often is. Pursuing the death penalty in appeals courts can (depending on the exact state and case) cost millions of dollars.

[Gustav Kuriga]

lol, yes. Yes it actually often is. Pursuing the death penalty in appeals courts can (depending on the exact state and case) cost millions of dollars.

So do meals and medical

[Penchant]

Medical is harder to come up with for an easy number, but I came up with $383,250 if you have 3 meals a day for 50 years with the meals costing $7 on average each.

[De-Legro]

Medical is harder to come up with for an easy number, but I came up with $383,250 if you have 3 meals a day for 50 years with the meals costing $7 on average each.

There was a Prison Warden for a youth jail in America that boosted he could feed each inmate for a day for less that the cost you place on a single meal.

[Perth]

Medical is harder to come up with for an easy number, but I came up with $383,250 if you have 3 meals a day for 50 years with the meals costing $7 on average each.

You obviously are completely oblivious to the kind of food served in prison.

And about the death penalty, even if it is more expensive, it really eliminates problems. Really. And of course, if it is more expensive, then make it cheaper. They do it each day for things that really deserve what is being paid for them, then why not for something that just affects criminals? It's not as if every needle had to be sterilized, or even use them at all. I'm sure a bullet well placed can do the same effect.

I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with tasking my government with "hey, go find the most cheap and efficient way to eliminate human beings."

[De-Legro]

Well, at least here in Spain the medical system could work well, if everyone uses it wisely. In fact, that's the reason why it's just "could" and not an actual statement: many don't use it as they should, and it has also many flaws and a lot of corruption in it. But it has potential, that for sure.

And about the death penalty, even if it is more expensive, it really eliminates problems. Really. And of course, if it is more expensive, then make it cheaper. They do it each day for things that really deserve what is being paid for them, then why not for something that just affects criminals? It's not as if every needle had to be sterilized, or even use them at all. I'm sure a bullet well placed can do the same effect.

The largest cost for the death penalty isn't the cost of the execution, its the cost that the appeals system generates. Remove the appeals system and the end result will be faster time to execution, but without that protection how many wrongly convicted people are going to end up executed? I'm completely against the death penalty. That but then I also live in a country that doesn't have it. It is my understanding that even with the years and years of appeals, mistakes have been made. No need to add more mistaken executions to that problem.  Nearly every country has cases of miscarriages of justice that resulted in innocent people serving sometimes DECADES in prision before ultimately being found innocent. Find a fool proof way to determine someone's guilt in a timely manner, and then maybe the death penalty can be effective. I'd still be against it since I don't believe that anyone has the right to condemn another to death, but then at least you would remove the potential for mistakes.

[D'Espana]

Obviously I'm not asking for the government to execute every thieve caught, but there are cases where the culprit can be charged almost in no time because, you know, they have proved they are guilty even before entering the court room. A good example: many members from ETA, a terrorist group from País Vasco, in Spain. They are now mostly inactive due to the disarm that the police forces from both France and Spain have forced upon them, but they have done terrible things. Terrible. Nearly a thousand people killed, many more kidnapped. And know what? They are mostly in prison, being released some years after committing their heinous crimes.

I will point out a single case from the hundreds we have had: several years ago, they kidnapped someone, I don't exactly recall who but I think he was a politician. They said that, if a number of ETA prisoners weren't released the next day, they'll kill him.

You don't know the civil unrest that such statement caused. All Spain went to the streets, claiming for his liberty and the end of madness. During the whole day, people stood there, showing their empathy and their reject to violence. I still tremble when remembering how emotive it was. And know what? They killed him. Once the day ended, they called and said: we've killed the bastard. Go and pick the corpse in this place.

Now we know who they were. Don't you think that they deserve inmediate execution? Catch them, throw them like rats to the lowliest hellhole ever while you prepare their execution, and kill them in the cheapest way to be found. Because they don't deserve anything else. In fact, you're being pretty humanitarian, compared to what they did to people.

I don't speak about every case, and agree that if you aren't sure about someone's guilt, then it's better not to apply death penalty. But sometimes, it is really the best choice, much better than wasting resources on scum that obviously don't deserve them, and even might try to escape on a regular basis.

[Gustav Kuriga]

There was a Prison Warden for a youth jail in America that boosted he could feed each inmate for a day for less that the cost you place on a single meal.

Please don't use specific examples to try and paint an overall picture.

[Penchant]

You obviously are completely oblivious to the kind of food served in prison.

There was a Prison Warden for a youth jail in America that boosted he could feed each inmate for a day for less that the cost you place on a single meal.

I don't actually think the meal price would be $7 on average but I didn't want others saying the number was too low. If you did it for $7 a day for 50 years, its $127,750.  For a nice in between $250000 spent on food for 50 years.

[Ehndras]

Aye, execution should be solely for those who have been proven BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT to be not only guilty but guilty of utter atrocity. Hitler and Hussein are great examples but your typical serial killer is quite good. For someone to have 5-10+ murders pinned on them while being innocent. If someone is proven guilty of having killed a bunch of people, not a barfight gone wrong or some bull!@#$ but an actual serial/mass-murder, and they show no/little remorse, they should be executed.

[Fleugs]

The death penalty is wrong in its essence itself. A state killing its subjects, even when committed crimes, spreads the underlying message that killing someone who is guilty is okay. I would dig up some numbers to show you that the death penalty has absolutely no effect on the reduction of murder - which is, after all, your ultimate goal - but I'm too lazy to do that right now. I had done so several days ago but decided not to post, since this thread jumps from topic to topic every second. It's even interesting that I read somewhere that the death penalty is about 2.3 million USD more expensive than locking up the criminal for the rest of his (or her) life. No idea how that's possible though, but I assume killing someone is not cheap (you cannot simply let them starve to death).

A state should at no point sanction killing, not even if it does the killing itself. I am happy that Europe (except for Belarus) has abolished capital punishment and I believe that ultimately the abolishment of capital punishment is part of the progress of human kind. Yes, I am saying that we are more "civilized" than countries that still have capital punishment. If you condemn murder done by the criminal, condemn it when it is done by the state. Who's to say a murderer cannot change his ways? It is ironic that some southern American states, like Texas, which I consider to be rather religious ones, forget that a fundamental part of Christianity is being able to forgive someone who has wronged you. But I guess religion is only used to the extend it favours you - that's why it's a joke.

[D'Espana]

Because killing someone who is guilty is okay. It removes the need to worry about his maintenance or further crimes, thus making easier to focus resources on those things that are really important. And I don't see why you can't let them starve to death. I would have done that with those starting hunger strikes in order to get some benefit or freedom.

And there are murderers who can't change their ways. As I said before, someone able to see the eyes of a woman they are about to rape, hear her cries and not feel the strongest repulse ever, doesn't deserve life, because that man is a monster. And even in some cases of those that may be able to rehabilitate, the risk of them killing another person is too much high to deserve consideration. I prefer to kill someone whose guilt I know and that PERHAPS can be rehabilitated than setting him free after some years to see he is killing or raping once again.

There is a sentence which sums pretty good my feelings on this: if you stab me once, the fault is yours. If you do it twice, the fault is mine. And whereas I agree that religion is a joke, it's not the same to forgive a random wrong that an assassination or rape to someone you love. Nobody should be made to undergo such suffering, provided he has not done it to someone else before. Nobody.

[Vellos]

It's even interesting that I read somewhere that the death penalty is about 2.3 million USD more expensive than locking up the criminal for the rest of his (or her) life. No idea how that's possible though, but I assume killing someone is not cheap (you cannot simply let them starve to death).

It's because of the appeals process. In the US, the death penalty cannot be administered until the defendant has either declined to appeal further, or completely exhausted the appeals process. The legal process in the US is intensely expensive, and nobody facing the death penalty ever gets  their sentence and just says, "Well, guess that's that, I'm convicted, why bother appealing?" The appeals process takes years, and thus adds years to their life expectancy. And personally, I'm glad the appeals system is so intense; I'm opposed to the death penalty to begin with – but if we're going to have it, I at least want to make sure that he have given people every reasonable chance we can to prove innocence or mitigating factors.

It is ironic that some southern American states, like Texas, which I consider to be rather religious ones, forget that a fundamental part of Christianity is being able to forgive someone who has wronged you. But I guess religion is only used to the extend it favours you - that's why it's a joke.

While it is true that religious sentiment in the US correlates with support for the death penalty (which is regrettable), within religious communities, amount of time spent in religious service (either laity or in vocational ministry), as well as knowledge of church doctrine, correlates negatively with support for the death penalty. Also, Christian support for the death penalty, thankfully, has declined somewhat in recent years.

i.e. people of a certain disposition tend to be religious and also tend to favor the death penalty. But heavy involvement in religion or in-depth exposure to doctrine tends to mitigate that effect, though not necessarily completely eliminate it.

[Gustav Kuriga]

It's because of the appeals process. In the US, the death penalty cannot be administered until the defendant has either declined to appeal further, or completely exhausted the appeals process. The legal process in the US is intensely expensive, and nobody facing the death penalty ever gets  their sentence and just says, "Well, guess that's that, I'm convicted, why bother appealing?" The appeals process takes years, and thus adds years to their life expectancy. And personally, I'm glad the appeals system is so intense; I'm opposed to the death penalty to begin with – but if we're going to have it, I at least want to make sure that he have given people every reasonable chance we can to prove innocence or mitigating factors.

While it is true that religious sentiment in the US correlates with support for the death penalty (which is regrettable), within religious communities, amount of time spent in religious service (either laity or in vocational ministry), as well as knowledge of church doctrine, correlates negatively with support for the death penalty. Also, Christian support for the death penalty, thankfully, has declined somewhat in recent years.

i.e. people of a certain disposition tend to be religious and also tend to favor the death penalty. But heavy involvement in religion or in-depth exposure to doctrine tends to mitigate that effect, though not necessarily completely eliminate it.

Proof please, let's not just bring these 'facts' to air without supporting evidence.