Death penalty

No, I did not say that was worse than murder. You said states with the death penalty have more murder and mayhem. Like it was a common factor for the problem. I just pointed out two other common factors. Also, most of the stats was based upon population percentage. So, take a state like Wyoming and have two murders and you end up with a higher murder rate than a high populated state with fifty murders.

Oh so murdering them in return for them murdering another is free? Once one is dead, there is nothing they can learn from what they did. They can’t be rehabilitated or even have a chance to prove innocence or anything else. We are talking human lives and doing unto them what they did to someone else, IMO, makes the one killing them just as guilty if not more guilty of murder.

Oh yes and it goes up higher if the murderer is murdered as a “punishment”. I don’t see how it punishes them once they are dead. They have no knowledge of the punishment. They are dead and don’t even care anymore. What purpose does it serve to murder the murderer? To make you feel better, knowing that the murderer was murdered by officials? That sounds barbaric and insane, as well as primitive.

Murders don’t really sit in jail feeling bad about who they killed. That is a Disneyfied view of criminals. Not to mention prison is not that bad once you adapt to it.

Most murderers will feel like they beat the system if they get prison instead of death, and they’re right.

[quote=“thatoneguy, post:23, topic:5221”]

Most murderers will feel like they beat the system if they get prison instead of death, and they’re right.

Unless it is life in solitary, with 1/2 hr p/day in the yard. Without, music, tv, books or any connection with others. That becomes a living hell and would be dreaded by even the most hardened minds. And if they wanted to commit suicide, don’t let them.
That’ll send a message; Hell now until you die from old age and go to Hell in perpetuity.

1 Like

How do you know? Are you a psychologist, with years of experience in criminal psychology? And what does it matter, as long as you aren’t committing the same crime they did by killing them.

Prisons aren’t allowed to do that stuff anymore.

I’ve been around ex-cons and they all same the same thing.

Now I know this is true. To leave people in solitary confinement, without human contact, TV, music, etc can drive them to insanity. People who commit crimes are messed up in the head as it is. We really do not want to make it worse.

This I do not believe, but if you appreciate the idea of killing murderous criminals, then that makes you just as guilty IMO, and also in some other people’s opinion too.

[quote=“mriana, post:28, topic:5221”]

Now I know this is true. To leave people in solitary confinement, without human contact, TV, music, etc can drive them to insanity. People who commit crimes are messed up in the head as it is. We really do not want to make it worse.

If you want a deterrent, you do want to make punishment as bad as can be imagined.

This theme was explored in StarTrek where two planets simulated warfare, but imaginary casualties were actually killed.
Kirk ordered an actual strike where material damage was severe and that ended the war.

You got that right. War is hell. Do you think that soldiers should not kill?

I am in California. Voluntary manslaughter is 3,6, or 11 years in prison. Use a gun and get additional 10 yrs. If you fired the weapon during a crime you could get an additional 20 yrs.

2nd degree murder up to 15 yrs. 1st degree murder you can get death, or life without parole for killing an officer. Parole after 25 yrs for killing someone of a lower Caste of life value.

A system designed for the rich. Just about no laws are passed in California that the Trial Lawyers Assoc. are against. A state where an officer’s life is worth more than yours.

I don’t think there should be war. It’s good for absolutely nothing. All it does is keep the undertaker working. Nothing is solved by it. I’m against the death penalty and war.

Fortunately for society, your view is rare.

[quote=“mriana, post:28, topic:5221”]

This I do not believe, but if you appreciate the idea of killing murderous criminals, then that makes you just as guilty IMO, and also in some other people’s opinion too.

Do you believe that a criminal person who denies the right to life to a righteous person should retain his right to life?

I agree, but he should lose all other rights to life, such as comfort. I believe his life should be made as horrendous as possible , without killing him.

If we want to use the penal system as a deterrent to all wannabe criminals., make the punishment such that there is no longer a choice. Fly right or land in living hell!

Heck, we might even employ criminals to administer the punishment. Give them gainful employment…; :face_with_symbols_over_mouth:

And if, finally, he is innocent ?

Other matter, what if standards change and one condamnation seems totally inequitable some years later ?

And some criminals can change and become wothy persons.

Locked up in prison for the rest of his life. I’ve already said this, many times in this thread.

Exactly. The beds in prison, I don’t think, are very comfortable. From the pictures of prison, it’s just a mat of a mattress on wires. I don’t think they can make life decisions either, except in the commissary where it’s a choice of honey buns or donuts, both costing more than in the real world. Then in some states, I think they still have Chain Gangs.

I think all people should be soldiers of the Rule of Laws and the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Study Concludes Death Penalty is Costly Policy

The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000.

Why do I get the feeling you are a far far right Conservative Repug?

Two problems, and i am a professional in law:

  • Law and its interpretation: the law, constitution included is interpreted by judges, under the control of the higher courts. The interpretation can change, about death penalty included.

The supreme court of USA accepted that segregation was legal, until it decided it was contrary to the constitution.

[Brown v. Board of Education - Wikipedia]

  • Laws must be obeyed, but can be changed and one can support a change in it.

  • Sometimes, one must disobey the law. for instance, during WWII, in occupied territories, people hid the Jews, risking their lives. Were they wrong?

I don’t think so. I don’t think MLK Jr and his supporters were wrong with passive resistance either. Keep in mind, during the Civil Rights Movement, the protestors even violated some laws too. IMHO, unjust laws have to be broken to bring about change.

You are right but who decides that the law is unjust and why. If religious white supremacists decide that racial equality is unjust and resist the law, you would disapprove and so will I.

To disobey law must truly be an exception …