Solution to the death penalty problem

[jakee 1,255]

jcd11235

Which is why the more reasonable explanation is that you inferred from my posts what was not written.

No, the reasonable interpretation is still that you're assuming more from his post than was written, because you assessed it based on what other people have said before. Which you clearly stated several times.

Quote

Hint: Basing my response on his full post and recognizing that his full post was consistent with commonly held "concerns" about the death penalty are not mutually exclusive.

"The argument goes back much further than states' struggles to get the actual killing aspect of the executions. No need to assume a new interpretation."

If you're not using a new interpretation of his new post, you are by definition using an old interpretation. Then that old interpretation would be of an old argument, not of his new post.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

You mean like a chamber they can be marched or rolled into and then gassed? Sounds very efficient. To increase efficiency, they could build just a few around the country and ship the condemned to them in trains.

You realize that right here in the US we "marched people into the gas chamber" between 1924 and 1999, right? Nazi Germany was hardly unique in that respect.

[Bob_Church 7]

billvon

Quote

You mean like a chamber they can be marched or rolled into and then gassed? Sounds very efficient. To increase efficiency, they could build just a few around the country and ship the condemned to them in trains.

You realize that right here in the US we "marched people into the gas chamber" between 1924 and 1999, right? Nazi Germany was hardly unique in that respect.

Holocaust victims were convicted murderers?

[billvon 2,400]

>Holocaust victims were convicted murderers?

Uh, no.

Are you trying to make a point here? If so, just state it; the "guess my point" game isn't very fruitful.

[Bob_Church 7]

billvon

>Holocaust victims were convicted murderers?

Uh, no.

Are you trying to make a point here? If so, just state it; the "guess my point" game isn't very fruitful.

Get some one else to explain it to you. I can't seem to write 2 + 2 = 4 without you misinterpreting or misunderstanding it.

[gowlerk 1,913]

It's probably time to step away from comparing judicial executions to genocide. Nitrogen intoxication is as good or better than any method used in the past. After the details are worked out. But that doesn't really change the central fact that killing in the name of the state makes killers of us all.

That is what I really mean when I talk about the cost being too high. The death penalty is not inherently immoral, but it damages the rest of us. And it especially damages those tasked with carrying it out.

The next factors against it are the inevitability of killing innocent people and the capricious nature of who actually gets the sentence and who cuts a deal.

I am sure in my heart that I could personally kill someone who killed my loved one. But I also know that I would not really gain anything from the act. As long as we are rich enough to afford to keep these people locked away that is the best answer to a bad situation.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

That is what I really mean when I talk about the cost being too high. The death penalty is not inherently immoral, but it damages the rest of us. And it especially damages those tasked with carrying it out.

The next factors against it are the inevitability of killing innocent people and the capricious nature of who actually gets the sentence and who cuts a deal.

I would reverse those two factors when it comes to the total cost of the death penalty.

The primary issue for me is that our justice system is simply not good enough to make accurate determinations of guilt at that penalty level. (Lots of examples there.) So we have laws that allow several appeals and long periods before execution to try to mitigate that lack of accuracy - which adds to the cost. Which leads to life in prison being cheaper overall than execution.

I agree there is damage to society by having society decide to kill, but we do far more damage when we vote for politicians who start wars. And no matter how much we try to glorify the job of the soldier (for obvious reasons) there's some very big problems that go along with deciding to kill a bunch of other people for strategic reasons - and we see those problems both in the lives of soldiers after their service and in society in general.

[nolhtairt 0]

SkyDekker

***Some states are now considering changing the method of death penalty to nitrogen chambers. You just go to sleep, forever. You won't feel a thing.

That will get around the issue of drug companies complaining about their drugs being used for it, as well as avoid potential botched attempts.

You mean like a chamber they can be marched or rolled into and then gassed? Sounds very efficient. To increase efficiency, they could build just a few around the country and ship the condemned to them in trains.

And you just Godwined the thread.

Big difference between using Nitrogen vs Zyklon B.

[billvon 2,400]

>Big difference between using Nitrogen vs Zyklon B.

Not really to the person being executed. The important criteria is - which kills more humanely? If it's Zyklon, then that would be the better choice.

[gowlerk 1,913]

Actually Bill, I usually just sum it up by saying "it's just too much power to give to the government".

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Bob_Church 7]

gowlerk

It's probably time to step away from comparing judicial executions to genocide. Nitrogen intoxication is as good or better than any method used in the past. After the details are worked out. But that doesn't really change the central fact that killing in the name of the state makes killers of us all.

That is what I really mean when I talk about the cost being too high. The death penalty is not inherently immoral, but it damages the rest of us. And it especially damages those tasked with carrying it out.

The next factors against it are the inevitability of killing innocent people and the capricious nature of who actually gets the sentence and who cuts a deal.

I am sure in my heart that I could personally kill someone who killed my loved one. But I also know that I would not really gain anything from the act. As long as we are rich enough to afford to keep these people locked away that is the best answer to a bad situation.

I agree with all of those things, but the problem is that there are some people who should never be released into public again. We talk as though there are two alternatives, the death penalty or keeping them in prison for the rest of their life. That would be fine except that the government doesn't keep up their end of the contract. Over and over again they release people who were sentenced to spend the rest of their life in prison. If you want to understand why Texas went to a streamlined death penalty you have to look at the case of Kenneth McDuff. In 1966 he murdered three people after raping the woman and was sentenced to three death sentences and life in prison. He was then paroled in 1989. Back on the street he stabbed a man because he was black but that wasn't enough for them to send him back to prison. By the time they caught him again he'd raped, tortured and murdered eight women, putting them in garbage bags and throwing them into ditches. They actually let just under 150 murderers out then. The governor was told he had to lower the number of people in prison and that's how he did it. McDuff was just the worst of them.
Even the Manson family members are/were getting parole hearings. If life in prison doesn't mean life in prison then how else do you keep people like McDuff locked away?
If the government inadvertently executes an innocent person that's a tragedy. But isn't it also a tragedy when they release someone who was sentenced to never ever leave prison and they kill people?
If we get to the point that people trust the government to do what they said they'd do then I think you'll see the desire for the death penalty fade away.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

The governor was told he had to lower the number of people in prison and that's how he did it.

Death row itself is hugely expensive, let alone the additional legal costs involved. Get rid of the death penalty and you can afford to keep several times more lifers in prison than you would otherwise have executed.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bob_Church 7]

jakee

Quote

The governor was told he had to lower the number of people in prison and that's how he did it.

Death row itself is hugely expensive, let alone the additional legal costs involved. Get rid of the death penalty and you can afford to keep several times more lifers in prison than you would otherwise have executed.

No doubt, but it would also be nice to know that the person sentenced to life in prison isn't going to be your neighbor in a few years.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

DanG

I'm against the death penalty, but that was weak.

Yeah, but you are still pissed off about the last time so you are a bit biased.

And yes Bill, I know the US has gassed many people before the Nazis. Not so sure it is something to be proud of. Killing people against their will is not humane, regardless of the method.

[jcd11235 0]

Bob_Church

… the problem is that there are some people who should never be released into public again.

Then sentence them to life in prison.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Bob_Church

No doubt, but it would also be nice to know that the person sentenced to life in prison isn't going to be your neighbor in a few years.

At any given time, that's a pretty safe bet, provided you yourself stay out of prison.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DanG 1]

Quote

Yeah, but you are still pissed off about the last time so you are a bit biased.

Huh? What am I supposed to be pissed off about?

- Dan G

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Bob,

Quote

the person sentenced to life in prison isn't going to be your neighbor

Because of this, Oregon voted in a Life Without Parole sentence. Prior, 'lifers' could get out in about 20-25 yrs if they kept their noses clean while inside.

As you mentioned in your previous post, some of them did kill again. So we fixed it. Now we need to just get rid of the death penalty.

And, regarding your earlier post: This 'sentence' thing is usually a state issue. The feds sentencing req'ments are usually for tax evasion, etc.; federal laws.

Jerry Baumchen

[Bob_Church 7]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Bob,

Quote

the person sentenced to life in prison isn't going to be your neighbor

Because of this, Oregon voted in a Life Without Parole sentence. Prior, 'lifers' could get out in about 20-25 yrs if they kept their noses clean while inside.

As you mentioned in your previous post, some of them did kill again. So we fixed it. Now we need to just get rid of the death penalty.

And, regarding your earlier post: This 'sentence' thing is usually a state issue. The feds sentencing req'ments are usually for tax evasion, etc.; federal laws.

Jerry Baumchen

We have Life Without in Ohio but there are already small but growing organizations trying to get it declared unconstitutional, cruel, that sort of thing. And since we're talking about sentences of decades it will take time to see if the sentence survives or not. And of course, this is about public perception so who knows how long it will take for people to start accepting the finality of it if it does hold up.
But it's a good move.

[jcd11235 0]

JerryBaumchen

Prior, 'lifers' could get out in about 20-25 yrs if they kept their noses clean while inside.

I don't get this. Federal sentences for crimes committed after 1987 don't offer any possibility of parole. Get 10 years; do 10 years. Get life; do life. Why do the states struggle with this?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,400]

>I know the US has gassed many people before the Nazis.

Yep. We did it before the Nazis - and we did it long after.

>Not so sure it is something to be proud of.

It's not. It's merely our history.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi jcd,

Quote

Why do the states struggle with this?

Ever think about all the folks that did long sentences for a simple drug crime that today is no longer a crime?

We live, we evolve.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) Other than alcohol, I have never used illegal drugs.

[jakee 1,255]

Bob_Church

***

Quote

The governor was told he had to lower the number of people in prison and that's how he did it.

Death row itself is hugely expensive, let alone the additional legal costs involved. Get rid of the death penalty and you can afford to keep several times more lifers in prison than you would otherwise have executed.

No doubt, but it would also be nice to know that the person sentenced to life in prison isn't going to be your neighbor in a few years.

So get rid of the death penalty and you'll be closer to that goal.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

JerryBaumchen

think about all the folks that did long sentences for a simple drug crime that today is no longer a crime?

I am of the opinion that incarceration is a far overused tool in the toolbox that is our justice system. I am also generally opposed to legal prohibition of most recreational drugs.

That being said, if someone should be incarcerated, as is typically the case with those for which the death penalty is being considered, it's ridiculous that that the alternative of life in prison should mean less than life in prison.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SkyDekker 1,122]

JerryBaumchen

Hi jcd,

Quote

Why do the states struggle with this?

Ever think about all the folks that did long sentences for a simple drug crime that today is no longer a crime?

We live, we evolve.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) Other than alcohol, I have never used illegal drugs.

Simple drug crime? Try life without parole for 50 years for shoplifting.

https://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol31_2004/winter2004/irr_hr_winter04_shoplifting.html