Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Politicians call for return of firing squad

firing squad lethal injections executions pharmaceutical companies death penalty

  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#46    FLOMBIE

FLOMBIE

    sapere aude

  • Member
  • 2,654 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seoul/Berlin

Posted 24 January 2014 - 02:02 AM

View Postspartan max2, on 24 January 2014 - 02:01 AM, said:

That's only because of the way we do the death penalty. We use injections and most of the cost are from all the legal crap and appeals involved in a death penalty. Our death penalty is more like okay, we will get to killing you in twenty years and have a court hearing everyone few months(which is were a lot of the cost is).


If we made it more efficient it would be way cheaper
i suggest you should read the study. There is a lot more.

Edit: But of course are you right with your statement. That the trials are dragged out for so much does make them very expensive. The courts are always overloaded with work.

Edited by FLOMBIE, 24 January 2014 - 02:04 AM.


#47    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,759 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 24 January 2014 - 02:06 AM

just a statement to everyone

I support the death penalty because I think some people should just die.

I don't believe it deters crime. The only way a law would deter crime would be if its so insanely strict and cruel, like torturing people for getting caught doing something works. Draculas(yes that's a real person just incase no one knew) crime rate dropped over 100% due to the fact that he would use convicts to do his sick torture experiments in his castle, no one wanted to have that punishment .

Not that I support us doing that lol,I in no way think we should have sick punishments on people,  im just saying it because its interesting.

The death penalty, specially in modern times has no effect. You sit around and appeal for twenty years then get put to sleep, plus we rarely use it.

View PostFLOMBIE, on 24 January 2014 - 02:02 AM, said:

i suggest you should read the study. There is a lot more.

Edit: But of course are you right with your statement. That the trials are dragged out for so much does make them very expensive. The courts are always overloaded with work.

okay ill check it out

Edited by spartan max2, 24 January 2014 - 02:11 AM.

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#48    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 24 January 2014 - 02:15 AM

View PostWickian, on 24 January 2014 - 01:52 AM, said:

I have to disagree with this point of view.  Some crimes are so bad that the only suitable punishment is removal from the planet(death being the cheapest and fasting way to do this).  We should not waste any money or resources than necessary to carry out the punishment on these criminals either.  Once found guilty

Because our justice system is not that cut and dried. People seem to think it is. But innocent people are cleared for crimes daily. Innocent men have been executed. Do you want to be one?

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#49    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,975 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 24 January 2014 - 11:16 AM

View Postninjadude, on 24 January 2014 - 02:15 AM, said:

Because our justice system is not that cut and dried. People seem to think it is. But innocent people are cleared for crimes daily. Innocent men have been executed. Do you want to be one?
It IS a possibility Dude.  It is a far higher possibility that you'd be murdered by a thug though.  It's a system run by humans and we make mistakes.  To expect perfection is to surrender.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#50    Almagest

Almagest

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 820 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2013

Posted 26 January 2014 - 03:37 PM

In my mind the government should not have the power to kill it's citizens based on popular opinion. The death penalty has been gone from Australia for decades now, but every time a girl or a young woman is murdered people squawk to bring it back. If you really want to use the death penalty as a deterrent then you have to give it to those who can actually be deterred. There isn't a serial killer in modern history whose crimes come anywhere close to those of Nixon - yet he gets a state funeral while people responsible for a handful of deaths get capital punishment. If our priorities are that out of whack then how can we be expected to make the right call when it comes to a life?

Life is the result of the struggle between dynamic opposites Form & Chaos, Substance & Oblivion, Light & Dark And all the infinite variations of Yin & Yang
When the pendulum swings in favour of one It will eventually swing in favour of it's opposite Thus the balance of the universe is maintained

-Jeru the Damaja

#51    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:03 PM

View Postspartan max2, on 24 January 2014 - 02:06 AM, said:

...I support the death penalty because I think some people should just die...
Which people?

How do you determine who "should just die"?

Should there be some sort of formula to determine whether a crime is heinous enough to warrant the death penalty? Should it be the decision of the jury? Or do you have some other concept?


#52    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,759 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:21 PM

View PostPeter B, on 26 January 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:


Which people?

How do you determine who "should just die"?

Should there be some sort of formula to determine whether a crime is heinous enough to warrant the death penalty? Should it be the decision of the jury? Or do you have some other concept?

I would say jury plus the crime has to be a certain level.

like it cant be for stealing a candy bar. The crime would have to meet certain requirements and then the jury would have to decide to give it.

For example you cant give someone the death penalty unless in the crime they also killed someone

Edited by spartan max2, 26 January 2014 - 04:22 PM.

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#53    FLOMBIE

FLOMBIE

    sapere aude

  • Member
  • 2,654 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seoul/Berlin

Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:39 PM

Killed? Or murdered?


#54    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 26 January 2014 - 05:06 PM

View Postspartan max2, on 26 January 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

I would say jury plus the crime has to be a certain level.

like it cant be for stealing a candy bar. The crime would have to meet certain requirements and then the jury would have to decide to give it.

For example you cant give someone the death penalty unless in the crime they also killed someone
Unfortunately, the problem with "meeting certain requirements" is that lawyers will argue back and forth about whether those "certain requirements" occurred. Say, for example, that one of these requirements was that the crime involved rape and murder. Now you have an argument over whether the sex was consensual, where one person involved is dead, the other has a very strong motivation to say the sex was consensual, and an ambitious District Attorney might have just as strong a motivation to say the sex wasn't consensual.

Alternatively, the opposing legal teams will negotiate back and forth over the charges, with the possibility that someone who did meet the "certain requirements" won't be so charged for reasons which have nothing to do with the circumstances of the crime. This leads to charges of inconsistent application of the law, and the likelihood that certain groups of people will be more likely to be executed for a given crime than other groups.

The thing is, these are some of the problems which in my opinion bedevil the system of capital punishment in the USA today.


#55    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,759 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:25 PM

View PostPeter B, on 26 January 2014 - 05:06 PM, said:


Unfortunately, the problem with "meeting certain requirements" is that lawyers will argue back and forth about whether those "certain requirements" occurred. Say, for example, that one of these requirements was that the crime involved rape and murder. Now you have an argument over whether the sex was consensual, where one person involved is dead, the other has a very strong motivation to say the sex was consensual, and an ambitious District Attorney might have just as strong a motivation to say the sex wasn't consensual.

Alternatively, the opposing legal teams will negotiate back and forth over the charges, with the possibility that someone who did meet the "certain requirements" won't be so charged for reasons which have nothing to do with the circumstances of the crime. This leads to charges of inconsistent application of the law, and the likelihood that certain groups of people will be more likely to be executed for a given crime than other groups.

The thing is, these are some of the problems which in my opinion bedevil the system of capital punishment in the USA today.

This is true, and certain groups get treated worse. But this is true for any punishment or any case. For a rape charge a defense lawyer will try to says it's consensual regardless of what penalty. So really your argument could be used against any punishment.

I dont know the exact requirements I would put but I would try to tailor ot around if the crimes bad enough for life in prison then it's als bad enough for a death penalty. At least if it's murder related.i  would have to work out the kinks.

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#56    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,759 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:27 PM

I think the main disagreement I have with most people about capital punishment is just that I see nonething morally wrong with ending the life of someone who has murdered many others.

While other people say killing is always wrong no matter

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#57    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 27 January 2014 - 12:44 AM

View Postspartan max2, on 26 January 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

I dont know the exact requirements I would put but I would try to tailor ot around if the crimes bad enough for life in prison then it's als bad enough for a death penalty. At least if it's murder related.i  would have to work out the kinks.

The problem is and I've posted this before. The jury can be wrong. Therefore you advocate killing a certain number of completely innocent people.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#58    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 27 January 2014 - 02:47 AM

View Postspartan max2, on 26 January 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

This is true, and certain groups get treated worse. But this is true for any punishment or any case. For a rape charge a defense lawyer will try to says it's consensual regardless of what penalty. So really your argument could be used against any punishment.
But what remains as the crucial difference between execution and all other punishments is that execution can't be reversed if the convicted person is later shown to be innocent.


#59    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 27 January 2014 - 03:23 AM

View Postspartan max2, on 26 January 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

I think the main disagreement I have with most people about capital punishment is just that I see nonething morally wrong with ending the life of someone who has murdered many others. [my bold]

While other people say killing is always wrong no matter
This is another of those problems I have with the application of the death penalty - determining exactly how heinous a crime has to be in order to merit the death penalty.

Even if we look at only the number of victims, how do you determine what merits the death penalty? Then you add in things like the nature of the killing, the mental state of the accused, the circumstances of the killing, and so on, many of which are quite subjective, and at the end of all that you come up with a score which determines whether the accused should be executed for what they've been found guilty of.

Look, if you take the most heinous cases of multiple violent unprovoked murders in which there is essentially no doubt of guilt, I can intellectually accept that there is a strong case for executing the murderer.

But my problem is that heinousness (if there isn't such a word, there is now) exists on a continuum. You can't neatly separate these sorts of crimes into two boxes - Death Penalty and Life in Prison - crimes simply aren't that neat. Given that heinousness exists on a continuum, people who support the death penalty have to say exactly how heinous a crime has to be to merit the death penalty, and then accept that a crime only fractionally less heinous somehow doesn't merit the death penalty. The first problem is that different people are going to draw that line in different places. The second problem is that determining which side of the line the crime falls on is subject to many subjective factors, and an accused person with poor quality lawyers may end up facing the death penalty for a crime which would objectively not merit it. The third problem is that juries will be encouraged by aggressive District Attorneys to keep lowering that line (that is, applying the death penalty in less heinous cases) so that the DAs can keep looking like they're being tough on crime.

There was a case a couple of years ago here in Australia in which a man crashed his car into a pond, with his two sons drowning. He claimed he blacked out as a result of a coughing fit, the crash was a complete accident, and he panicked on waking with the car underwater and thus leaving his sons to drown. But on the basis of the family situation, things he'd said earlier, and some evidence from other drivers, he was charged with deliberately crashing the car and leaving his sons to drown. Assuming that wilfully putting two helpless people in a situation where they would drown is a crime meriting the death penalty, how comfortable would you feel leaving it to a jury to determine whether the man should be executed based on their interpretation of the two alternative explanations? That is, if he was found guilty of murder, but had actually had the coughing fit, then execution seems a harsh punishment for a horrible accident.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users