Dakstang

I just wonder if it really would cost $20,000 a year to keep someone in prison. That seems really high.

Heck, it doesn't cost me $20,000 a year to live on the ouside.

I think the figure would be much lower than that.

__________________

There'll be no sorrow there, no more burdens to bear,
No more sickness, no more pain, no more parting over there;
And forever I will be with the One who died for me,
What a day, glorious day that will be.

Guardian Devil

Throw some bailout dollahs at them, that seems to be the answer for everything.

__________________

Assassin™

I agree they (murderers) don't deserve to live. I don't think they deserve to die either....

cue ultra right-wing Assassin:

I think they deserve to be tortured and horribly maimed and disfigured, then released. How is lethal injection even considered a punishment?

Timothy McVeigh, infamous Oklahoma City bomber, killed 168 people. These people died after having their limbs blown off, having their skin melt off of them, etc. How does McVeigh die? Laying back in a comfy hospital bed with the only discomfort being a small needle in his arm? Justice?

I believe in "an eye for an eye", I just don't believe lethal injection matches up, especially in McVeigh's case.

Seriously.

I do believe the harshest form of punishment should be reserved for serial killers and terrorists, who I would still torture, but would then put back in prison. The vast majority of homicides aren't committed by people who we would consider a threat to society, that's why I say for your average "drug deal gone wrong" type of murder, give the perp 5 or 10 years in prison, take off his left leg, then release him. The rest of his life will be miserable. That's a real fucking punishment.

/ultra right-wing Assassin

And here is my more civilized justification for the "just torture 'em" nonsense I just threw out:

People who say the death penalty is hypocritical are absolutely right. How can the government call it a crime to murder someone, then punish you by doing the exact same thing? It goes hand-in-hand with this whole pseudo-intellectual theodicy of starting preemptive wars while claiming to be pro-life. If killing someone is wrong, then it should be wrong all the time, in any and every context.

Other possible objections to my BTK style justice is that it is cruel and unusual punishment, and is inhumane. To that I would say....I agree. And so is blowing up 168 innocent people. I'm saying the penalty should match the crime. And if we can find the will to get over our moral hangups, we can match the penalty to the crime without re-committing the crime. I think my solution is the best way to do that.

Unfortunately, our justice system doesn't share this same objective. It's all about public perception. If people perceive execution as having been the fairest thing to do, then that's all that matters. Nevermind that a Supreme Court judge's inclinations on such issues should be much better than the average citizen's....

If we are going to operate under the ancient "eye for an eye" philosophy, while also subscribing to the equally ancient "thou shalt not kill" philosophy, the mere concept of the death penalty inherently fails both of these lines of thought on the most fundamental bases.

DD

I love it.

While I read this entire thread, and would love to go on and on, I think alot of this stuff was covered already.

I am fine with the death penalty for EXTREME cases such as serial killers and terrorists like Assassin said, but I really think "If you murder someone, then you should be put to death" is a bit much from the other side of the coin I see alot of people saying.

If a guy breaks into my house and is running up the stairs with a big knife and I shoot him in the face, should I be put to death? Because in the state of Massachusetts its not deemed self defense simply because he was in your house. You must make all attempts to flee the situation. If you have a point of escape, legally you gotta take it. Stupid I know.......

What about the people that get released from jail after 20 years because.......ooops turns out Joe Blow didn't kill that family in Timbucktoo.

Who is regulated to putting people to death? What gives them the right to just kill themselves?

Yeah I know I am all over the place, just trying to hit on some points that may have been missed.

Who fucking cares how much money it costs? At the end of the day, you have no control over the way ANY of the money is spent in your country.

__________________

Assassin™

wtf? I never said that. I actually said the exact opposite.

And here you are claiming to have "read this entire thread"...

So, we shouldn't care about things we have no control over? So I guess all the talk in this section about things such as the bank and auto bailouts, gas tax, healthcare, and all these other social and political issues that people have strong opinions over is all just irrelevant because we have "no control" over them, and therefore we shouldn't care how money is spent?

Pessimism and apathy is one thing, but you're taking it to a grossly irresponsible level by claiming people shouldn't care about how the government spends money solely because we don't control it.

Suffy

Maybe because I am a prep school student but I have a pretentious side to me and that side to me says that I disagree with Assassin's torture and the death penalty because I like to see myself above such barbaric methods and will not sink to the convicted's level.

__________________

Assassin™

The methods I suggested are definitely barbaric. No question about it. But so are the crimes they would be punishment for. I'm looking for a solution that not only is fair and just, but that also works. If people knew that getting convicted of murder would mean that the government would have the right to do to you everything from the Saw movies, I think that would invoke fear into people and would maybe discourage them from pulling the trigger so often.

Maybe because I'm a college student, I can be pretentious as well. I'm not willing to blind my mind to the fact that both the death penalty and life in prison simply aren't effective in deterring homicide, nor are they fair punishment.

Dakstang

Torture is definitely not the answer.

As I pointed out earlier, our justice system is not perfect. As long as their is a chance an innocent person could be treated so harshly, this can not be a viable option.

__________________

There'll be no sorrow there, no more burdens to bear,
No more sickness, no more pain, no more parting over there;
And forever I will be with the One who died for me,
What a day, glorious day that will be.

The Brain

I'm not gonna sit here and pretend I know what works. I do, however, think I know what does not work. That is sending criminals to prison where they will learn how to be better criminals when they get out. These people, when they get out, are afforded even less of a chance to make a legit living for themselves than they had before they got there. Of course they're going to go back to what they know.

I know that has to do with criminals who have nothing to fear from the death penalty, but it also has to do with those that are on death row. Like I said, I don't know how to fix that, but prison as a form of 'rehabilitation' simply does not work.

__________________

Dakstang

That is definitely true.

The recidivism rate proves that.

But if we are just talking as a alternative to the death penalty it doesn't really matter. They should serve life in prison without the chance of parole.

__________________

There'll be no sorrow there, no more burdens to bear,
No more sickness, no more pain, no more parting over there;
And forever I will be with the One who died for me,
What a day, glorious day that will be.