Things like this ALMOST make me believe in the death penalty-discusting beyond belief

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I thought about this some more. My conclusion is, even if you put hard core murderers on Death Row, you can't stop them from killing more. In fact, they might just do it because they can't be worse off.

Procedures for handling death row prisoners make them the least able to step out of line in any way of any prisoners in the system. Guards and everyone else know these prisoners have nothing to lose.

In California, each inmate is housed in a private cell. There are no open assembly areas - meals are served to inmates in their cells, and collected. No potentially lethal silverware or plates or anything else is allowed. When an inmate has to leave his cell for any reason - law library, visit with lawyers or family, medical call, the rest of the block is in lockdown, there are guards at each end of the corridor, and four guards for the prisoner - two to stand by to help if needed, two to attach leg and hand restraints. This prisoner sticks his hands out of the cell, is handcuffed from the front, then steps back as the door is opened remotely. He is allowed out of the cell, exits, turns toward the cell bars, and assumes the search position. He is searched, then has a leather waist harness attached, and leg restraints, which are chained with a light chain to each handcuff.

The end result is the prisoner can walk normally with his hands close in front of his waist in a reasonably comfortable position, or he can raise and move his hands in a fair range of motion, if he's standing still. He can't run, and he can't use his hands away from his body if he's moving. During whatever out of cell procedure is going on, the prisoner is generally restrained to some other object, but is never allowed out of cell with unrestricted mobility and without restraints.

When the prisoner is moved, it's with the same four guards - two beside, and two close behind.

It's very time consuming and expensive, but they can't do anything out of line at all.

[Japher]

Read Pappalion, Cerberus.

Great movie too!

I just wish the "death penalty" was actually a deterent. Most ppl assume that "deat" = "life in prison" since no one outside Texas really knows how to kill anyone efficiently...

Crud, I gave a compliment to Texas... Don't get on your high horse now Sloww...

[TCO]

This best part of killing murderers is that it pisses off the Euros.

[rah]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There is a difference between wanting to get a lessor sentence on robbery v. armed robbery and people not wanting to committ murder becuase they're afraid of the DP.

Obviously You didn't read what I wrote, I said the DP could reduce murders. Many people die during robberies when guns are involved. If the DP makes people use fake guns, then murders are less likely to occur during those crimes.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Let's face it, the states which have the DP have insane rates of murder while states without have much lower rates.
while Texas has a murder rate almost six times the rest of the nation (48+ per 100,000).

Hmmm, maybe the high murder rate in Texas has to do with the number of GUNS in the state. What's to say that if Texas didn't have the DP, that the rate wouldn't be even higher. Those statistics just don't impress me because you can't prove the corelation.

[Al B. Sure!]

Urban:

Suppose I really really hate my boss. So I carry out my plot of killing him. Now, since if I get caught, I'll be given the capital punishment anyway, so why don't I go down in a blaze of glory? Blowing up buildings, robbing banks, setting fire to police stations, etc. I can't end up worse off, no?

i dont get this... by this logic... a murderor facing a life-time in prison (or prison period) would do anything he can to avoid getting caught including robbing people at gun point, gunning down whoever stands in his way, shooting up cops at a police stand-off, etc. he can't end up any worse off than life in prison...

[Al B. Sure!]

Let's face it, the states which have the DP have insane rates of murder while states without have much lower rates.
while Texas has a murder rate almost six times the rest of the nation (48+ per 100,000).

Japan got the death penalty and they got almost no murder rate

[rah]

Good Point AS.

But again this doesn't impress me because I think Japanese culture has more impact on the murder rate than the DP. It's very difficult to isolate the impact the DP has on the murder rate. There are way too many other factors, so it's silly to use it in arguements.

[GePap]

NY has seen one of the most pronounced drops in murder rates anywhere in the country and they have stayed down and kept falling. We alo have very strict gun laws, and while we do have the DP: it has never been used, and does not seem likely to in a while.

The DP is not a significant deterent to murder, not enough to justify under those grounds.

For all the DP supporters: why just the DP? it quick, it short, and its painless (for the most part). Why not recind the Constitutional ammendement against unusual punishment and cruelty and get Medeival on their asses? And put it on prime Time TV for all to see: This would do a far better job infulfilling all the benefits you guys think we get from the DP. I am sure if the kids saw a man flayed alive slowly on TV while he screamed the most good-awfull scream you can imagine, and then you told them: that's what murderes get, would not your kids think more than twice about it? Oh, and wouldn't the families like to see the criminal suffer unspeakably, perhaps much more than their own victims? And besides, if we think these guys are worth killing, what rights could they possbily have not to be made to suffer the most unspeakable horros around?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Japan got the death penalty and they got almost no murder rate

So does China (and they use it for tax evation and corruption no less) and they have lots of crime. Conversely, Norway has no DP, and a very small murder rate (true for the bulk of Europe).

[Meldor]

The purpose of the Death Penalty isn't the prevention more murders; it is to rid the state of one murderer that a jury felt was beyond reform.

The person put to death general fits into one of 3 categories (at least in Texas).
1) They committed a crime so heinous that the person who committed it deserves death. Example: You kill your wife, hack her into little pieces and feed them to her family.
2) You commit enough crimes along with or in addition to the murder such that a jury feels that you will be a continuing threat to public safety no matter what treatment you are given. Example: Serial murders and/or rapists.
3) During the commission of a crime or your apprehension for a crime, a peace officer or court officer dies (police, bailiff, sheriff, judge, even a city inspector).

The above-mentioned people are deemed to have committed crimes great enough to pay the ultimate price.

[rah]

Originally posted by GePap
For all the DP supporters: why just the DP? it quick, it short, and its painless (for the most part). Why not recind the Constitutional ammendement against unusual punishment and cruelty and get Medeival on their asses? And put it on prime Time TV for all to see: This would do a far better job infulfilling all the benefits you guys think we get from the DP. I am sure if the kids saw a man flayed alive slowly on TV while he screamed the most good-awfull scream you can imagine, and then you told them: that's what murderes get, would not your kids think more than twice about it? Oh, and wouldn't the families like to see the criminal suffer unspeakably, perhaps much more than their own victims? And besides, if we think these guys are worth killing, what rights could they possbily have not to be made to suffer the most unspeakable horros around?

What the heck does that have to do with anything?
Don't just make statements, try adding a little logic.
Geeze.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah


What the heck does that have to do with anything?
Don't just make statements, try adding a little logic.
Geeze.

There was plenty of logic.

Points made for the death penaty:
1. "real justice"
2. Closure for the fmily of the victims
3. deterrent against further crime.

1. How does a quick and painless death equate with this type of brutal murder? If its really eye for an eye, should not the death of these people be as painful, if not more? Where is the justice in a quick and painless death?

2. Most families never see the person die. Shouldn;t they? does that not increase the "closure" level? Don;t they 'deserve to see" the criminal suffereing, as some sort of beginning therapy as well?

3. How does a painless death in a closed room really deter anyone? For the vast majority of its history the DP was very public: after all, does not a deterrent work much better when everyone knows what it is like and can see the reality of it? You want to kill people so others don;t kill? Fine, then do it in public, so everyone can see what the system is like. Wouyld not seeing a person die in horriofic ways make a much greater impression and strike fear much deeper than just thinking about some antiseptic death in a room?

If the three arguments for the DP are as valid as you say, then I fail to see why public torture of criminals would not end up doing the job much better.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
There was plenty of logic.

Well, according to some people, anyway.

Points made for the death penaty:
1. "real justice"
2. Closure for the fmily of the victims
3. deterrent against further crime.

1. How does a quick and painless death equate with this type of brutal murder? If its really eye for an eye, should not the death of these people be as painful, if not more? Where is the justice in a quick and painless death?

It's not eye for an eye. The framers of the Constitution accepted the notion of capital punishment, but rejected the notion of wanton cruelty at the whim of the crown, as had been the practice. Judicial execution is a very serious thing, not a freak show, and not on the same level as murder for the hell of it.

The "justice" is that the ******* in question doesn't get to settle in, read books, watch TV, socialize with other inmates, jerk off, and generally adapt to his confinement above ground, while the victim is six feet in a hole, able to do none of the above.

2. Most families never see the person die. Shouldn;t they? does that not increase the "closure" level? Don;t they 'deserve to see" the criminal suffereing, as some sort of beginning therapy as well?

Families are generally entitled to have witness spots at executions. Not all want to, nor should they be forced. Personally, I don't know if I'd bother - simply knowing the ******* was dead would be fine. I'm not squeamish about killing, I'd just consider it mostly wasted time, and why give the **** an audience?

3. How does a painless death in a closed room really deter anyone? For the vast majority of its history the DP was very public: after all, does not a deterrent work much better when everyone knows what it is like and can see the reality of it? You want to kill people so others don;t kill? Fine, then do it in public, so everyone can see what the system is like. Wouyld not seeing a person die in horriofic ways make a much greater impression and strike fear much deeper than just thinking about some antiseptic death in a room?

If the three arguments for the DP are as valid as you say, then I fail to see why public torture of criminals would not end up doing the job much better.

I don't have that much problem with hangings on the courthouse lawn, but with all the appellate stuff, it'd be extra work. Since you have to house inmates long term, you have to go through all sorts of security issues, and public executions would just be more of a pain in the ass than necessary.

I'm not that concerned about deterrence, I'm just more interested in doing our part to reduce global warming by removing an unnecessary source of CO₂ and methane emissions.

[St Leo]

Wow, they listened to Helter Skelter 42 times.

Personally, I prefer Yellow Submarine, but Helter Skelter is a close third or fourth after Revolution and possibly All Together Now.

[St Leo]

I'm not that concerned about deterrence, I'm just more interested in doing our part to reduce global warming by removing an unnecessary source of CO2 and methane emissions.

1. That only works if the bodies are buried rather than cremated.
2. I think the death penalty makes no sense economically (wasted cost of weaning) or psychologically (revenge seldom brings satisfaction).