"If this does not qualify for the death sentence, then there is no case that would''

[Velociryx]

Ramo: Non-violent offenders, held in minimal security prisons are relatively cheap to maintain. As security measures increase, costs increase exponentially. Ask ANYONE who has ever been, even peripherally associated with our nation's prison system.

Lawrence: Yes! Let's just legalize EVERYTHING! With a complete absence of laws, we'll have no one in prision, and our costs will fall to zero! Utopia, right?

And you're quite right, it's easy to say "mistake" because I've not been charged with anything. Then again, that's what an opinion poll is all about, yes? Posting one's own views and opinions? And as I am not currently in the position you describe, my position is shaded accordingly.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
when someone violates someone else's rights, the violator loses some of their rights.

Such as the right to life

2. there is no right to pass laws, and 3, there is no right to impose taxes.

Hmmm, they seem to do that a lot though.

[Velociryx]

Further notations:

Society DOES decide (by virtue of passed laws) what the minimum safety requirements of automobiles are, and under what conditions surgery can be performed, and what medications can be dispensed, and how, etc...so in that light, yes, society IS responsible for those deaths, because it would be technically feasable to engineer a car that would reduce highway fatalities to zero.

Of course, such a car might look something like a nerf-covered tank, and have a maximum cruising speed of 5kph, but it would be possible

Why then, does our society not do this? It would save lives!!!

-=Vel=-

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Lawrence: Yes! Let's just legalize EVERYTHING! With a complete absence of laws, we'll have no one in prision, and our costs will fall to zero! Utopia, right?

wait. did i say take dangerous criminals out of jail? no. i said that 'criminals' who only 'crime' is a consensual contract between indivduals out, and put the real ones in there.

check out these stats

66.4% of murders were cleared
44.3% of rapes were cleared
24.9% of robberies were cleared
13.6% of grand theft autho were cleared
12.7% of burglary were cleared

overal clearance rate 19.6%

that means if you commit a crime against person or property, you have an 80% chance of getting away with it. thats the real crime in america. and why is that? because over 4 million people are prosecuted for victimeless crimes each year.

spend money smarter. dont throw more of it at the problem.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Such as the right to life

yea i figured that some wag would say so. so are u saying that if i steal i pizza, i forfit my life?

Hmmm, they seem to do that a lot though.

unfortunately yes.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
yea i figured that some wag would say so. so are u saying that if i steal i pizza, i forfit my life?

No, you forfeit part of your right to property - not only do you have to give back the pizza, but you have to give back some money too.

unfortunately yes.

So ideally the government wouldn't pass laws or collect taxes?

[Velociryx]

Lawrence: Well, you were the one advocating the release of dealers, and then legalizing their product so as to make them kinder and gentler, and if we're gonna do that, why stop there, right?

-=Vel=-

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Assuming we had the means to delve so deeply into the psyche of these disturbed individuals as to be able to accurately predict their behavior, then it would be a reasonalbe expectation that a "cure" for their behavior would be relatively close at hand, and in that case, I'd be in favor of something far harsher than permanant solitary confinement (which has been the harshest thing posted by the anti-DP'ers so far)....something more akin to an induced coma, until such time as that cure was realized.

So why not now? What differentiates the killer in that scenario from the killer in this one? (other than the obvious fact one is aprehended before the crime) They are both just as likely to attack and kill (again) if held.

Or is it just a cost cutting measure again? Too long and too far?

[Velociryx]

Why not now? Because we can't delve that deeply into the human psyche, nor can we induce a coma until a "cure" is found. You asked a hypothetical question, so I posed a hypothetical answer. Neither tho, have anything in particular to do with the world we live in right now.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Non-violent offenders, held in minimal security prisons are relatively cheap to maintain. As security measures increase, costs increase exponentially. Ask ANYONE who has ever been, even peripherally associated with our nation's prison system.

I counted 3363 people on death row (2002 statistics). Are you saying that it costs 150 times as much to maintain these people as it does to hold drug offenders (and keep in mind, not everyone's going to be in minimum secuirty)?

[Kuciwalker]

The answer is, it's generally not useful to kill people who haven't commited a crime - you lose most, if not all of the deterrent.

EDIT: re Aeson

[Velociryx]

Can't forget Ramo:

How likely is a killer to kill again? How likely is a rabid dog to bite again? I can't give you percentages without making them up off the top of my head, but intuitively, I'd say pretty doggone likely. I have a taste for steak and lobster. I eat it whenever I can afford to do so. Killers have a taste for blood (at least, those of the extremely disturbed variety we're talking about here). Would YOU leave him alone with your daughter and hope for the best? Really?

And for the record, Pee Wee Gaskins is hardly unique. An ameture, really. Called "the redneck Manson" by the local press around here, which is illustrative of that very point.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

More to Ramo: 3 thousand odd ON DEATH ROW....and no, it certainly does not cost 150x to maintain them....but then, that's not what you were advocating, was it? Solitary confinement for our worst killers, as opposed to death row, and THAT, my friend, would be heinously expensive.

150x? I have no idea....I don't make it a habit to carry around prison cost statistics in my head, nor do we have any prisons that are exclusive solitary cells in any event.

But you can bet it'd cost a whooooole lot more than keeping them on death row.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Vel, in most states (everywhere?), all it takes is 1st degree murder to get the death penalty (or killing a cop, etc.). One doesn't have to by Charles Manson to be executed.

[Ramo]

I don't think everyone currently on death row deserves that kind of treatment. Probably only a relatively small minority of the population.