Yet, neither have anything to do with big or small government. The only people who I know that are against the government meting out punishment for criminal activity are anarchists. Feel free to rail against the death penalty all you want. But put away the stinky Big Government red herring.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Death Penalty (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Wrigley
- Start date
Koya
Footballguy
I was actually a strong proponent of capital punishment until I read Nietzsche. I then realized how damaging it really is to a society, even if well implemented.
Considering how govts don't implement well when they WANT to, and how they get driven by agendas, lobbies , dollars and politics... Legalizing govt killing of its citizens just makes no ####### sense.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I'm going to preface my question by stating that I'm opposed to the death penalty. So don't make assumptions about what I believe or equate me as some extremist for debating with you.
How can you see how barbaric a government can be, but then call people who don't trust government paranoid?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Short answer is it depends on the nature of your distrust of the government. Certain levels of distrust are reasonable; others are paranoid, depending on the issue and what you think the government might be up to, exactly. But let's not derail this thread any further with this discussion.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
So in other words, the distrust that you share with others is reasonable distrust, and the distrust you don't share with others is paranoid distrust. Thanks for clearing that up. Back to the original topic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
Hi, I'm Fennis. I'm not an anarchist and I am against the government killing its citizens. I didn't know that was such a revolutionary thought.Yet, neither have anything to do with big or small government. The only people who I know that are against the government meting out punishment for criminal activity are anarchists. Feel free to rail against the death penalty all you want. But put away the stinky Big Government red herring.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
Christo addressed this pretty well so I won't address that aspect of your post. I am curious about the equity part though. Please unpack that a bit more.
You might want to read my post again, Fennis.Hi, I'm Fennis. I'm not an anarchist and I am against the government killing its citizens. I didn't know that was such a revolutionary thought.Yet, neither have anything to do with big or small government. The only people who I know that are against the government meting out punishment for criminal activity are anarchists. Feel free to rail against the death penalty all you want. But put away the stinky Big Government red herring.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
Jayrod
Footballguy
But you have misunderstood the very nature of the relationships and responsibilities involved. God forgives of sin but does not withhold the consequences of sin in this world. And in the same way, the role of the government is to establish and enforce law and order. The OT addresses the practicality of this for the nation of Israel. But Jesus didn't come to revolutionize government, but to revolutionize our relationship with the Father. Grace is a spiritual and relational concept, not a governmental one. The Bible clearly supports the death penalty as a responsibility of the ruling authority. There is even a death penalty administered by God himself in the NT (Acts 5).
As for giving people more time to hear about Jesus, that is between men and God. I don't see the Biblical justification for eliminating executions just so a person has more time to contemplate whether to put their faith in Christ. On the contrary, I would actually argue that the urgency of imminent execution would spur a person to repentance much more effectively than not, but that is merely a personal opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Norman Paperman
Footballguy
lod01
Footballguy
How do you measure obviousness? Everyone on death row is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt -- even the innocent ones.
Killing innocent people is a deterrent against being innocent. That's not socially useful.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Josie Maran
Footballguy
I don't really get this argument. You're saying that increasing the level of punishment the government is permitted to carry out isn't actually increasing government power?Yet, neither have anything to do with big or small government. The only people who I know that are against the government meting out punishment for criminal activity are anarchists. Feel free to rail against the death penalty all you want. But put away the stinky Big Government red herring.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
lod01
Footballguy
I'll give you a couple examples. Jared Loughner, TJ Lane. So many witnesses it's impossible for them to be anything but guilty of murder.
You're ignoring the actual meaning of Big Government which is the government involving itself in matters that the government shouldn't be involved in. The criminal justice system is not one of those areas.I don't really get this argument. You're saying that increasing the level of punishment the government is permitted to carry out isn't actually increasing government power?Yet, neither have anything to do with big or small government. The only people who I know that are against the government meting out punishment for criminal activity are anarchists. Feel free to rail against the death penalty all you want. But put away the stinky Big Government red herring.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I agree with Christo here and this is exactly what I was trying to say. I'm opposed to the death penalty. I would vote against it tomorrow if I was asked to and I'd be sort of okay with the Supreme Court prohibiting it. But this isn't a "scope of government" issue. Imprisoning someone for life, taking away all they'll ever have in the ordinary world, is very nearly as severe as the death penalty and nobody is arguing against that on libertarian grounds.You're ignoring the actual meaning of Big Government which is the government involving itself in matters that the government shouldn't be involved in. The criminal justice system is not one of those areas.I don't really get this argument. You're saying that increasing the level of punishment the government is permitted to carry out isn't actually increasing government power?Yet, neither have anything to do with big or small government. The only people who I know that are against the government meting out punishment for criminal activity are anarchists. Feel free to rail against the death penalty all you want. But put away the stinky Big Government red herring.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
I don't see how examples are helpful. I'm not disputing the fact that some people are obviously guilty. I'm asking how juries are supposed to determine which people are in that category. A jury currently has its choice of two verdicts: not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Should we expand it to three possibilities? Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, obviously guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and non-obviously guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? What in the heck would that third category even mean?
Last edited by a moderator:
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Gotcha. Disagree completely, but I see your point better.You're ignoring the actual meaning of Big Government which is the government involving itself in matters that the government shouldn't be involved in. The criminal justice system is not one of those areas.I don't really get this argument. You're saying that increasing the level of punishment the government is permitted to carry out isn't actually increasing government power?Yet, neither have anything to do with big or small government. The only people who I know that are against the government meting out punishment for criminal activity are anarchists. Feel free to rail against the death penalty all you want. But put away the stinky Big Government red herring.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Yes, if I ruled the world for a day, I would add another level of certainty of guilt. "Reasonable doubt" was invented at some point, doesn't seem to be a stretch to add another, higher standard. "Beyond all doubt," whatever you want to call it. It could be defined, as reasonable doubt is, and the jurors could apply it as they do the current standard.
Disagree about what? Your definition of Big Government would destroy its meaning.Gotcha. Disagree completely, but I see your point better.You're ignoring the actual meaning of Big Government which is the government involving itself in matters that the government shouldn't be involved in. The criminal justice system is not one of those areas.I don't really get this argument. You're saying that increasing the level of punishment the government is permitted to carry out isn't actually increasing government power?Yet, neither have anything to do with big or small government. The only people who I know that are against the government meting out punishment for criminal activity are anarchists. Feel free to rail against the death penalty all you want. But put away the stinky Big Government red herring.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
I would define Big Government differently than you, as I'm sure a lot of people would. There are aspects of society where I would agree the government has power, but expanding that power can be an expansion of "Big Government." To stick with the law enforcement theme, I think the Drug War is a perfect example.Disagree about what? Your definition of Big Government would destroy its meaning.Gotcha. Disagree completely, but I see your point better.You're ignoring the actual meaning of Big Government which is the government involving itself in matters that the government shouldn't be involved in. The criminal justice system is not one of those areas.I don't really get this argument. You're saying that increasing the level of punishment the government is permitted to carry out isn't actually increasing government power?Yet, neither have anything to do with big or small government. The only people who I know that are against the government meting out punishment for criminal activity are anarchists. Feel free to rail against the death penalty all you want. But put away the stinky Big Government red herring.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
You can say the sky is red all you want. But it's blue. And no amount of wishing can change that.Josie Maran said:I would define Big Government differently than you, as I'm sure a lot of people would. There are aspects of society where I would agree the government has power, but expanding that power can be an expansion of "Big Government." To stick with the law enforcement theme, I think the Drug War is a perfect example.Christo said:Disagree about what? Your definition of Big Government would destroy its meaning.Josie Maran said:Gotcha. Disagree completely, but I see your point better.Christo said:You're ignoring the actual meaning of Big Government which is the government involving itself in matters that the government shouldn't be involved in. The criminal justice system is not one of those areas.Josie Maran said:I don't really get this argument. You're saying that increasing the level of punishment the government is permitted to carry out isn't actually increasing government power?Yet, neither have anything to do with big or small government. The only people who I know that are against the government meting out punishment for criminal activity are anarchists. Feel free to rail against the death penalty all you want. But put away the stinky Big Government red herring.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
Love this thinking.
Jail doesn't seem to be a deterrent so we may as well get rid of it. And since laws don't seem to deter anything, time to scrap them too.
Last edited by a moderator:
lod01
Footballguy
I always laugh at the 'its not a deterrent' line. Really? Well I think it's going to be hard to find people who would go on record and say, 'man, because of the death penalty, I've decided not to commit first degree murder'. All they have is murders keep happening. Wow, yeah that proves its not a deterrent.Love this thinking.
Jail doesn't seem to be a deterrent so we may as well get rid of it. And since laws don't seem to deter anything, time to scrap them too.
timschochet
Footballguy
That's not how you reach that conclusion. The way you reach it is you examine 2 societies: one has the death penalty, one does not. If the society with the death penalty has less murders per capita, then we know it's probably a deterrent. If not, then we know it probably isn't.I always laugh at the 'its not a deterrent' line. Really? Well I think it's going to be hard to find people who would go on record and say, 'man, because of the death penalty, I've decided not to commit first degree murder'. All they have is murders keep happening. Wow, yeah that proves its not a deterrent.Love this thinking.
Jail doesn't seem to be a deterrent so we may as well get rid of it. And since laws don't seem to deter anything, time to scrap them too.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not 100% convinced Jared Loughner is guilty of murder. From what I've read about him, there is a possibility that he was too insane to understand the nature of his actions. We're I on the jury I doubt I'd vote that way, but if this was the defense offered I'd at least listen to the available evidence.lod01 said:
That's not how you reach that conclusion. The way you reach it is you examine 2 societies: one has the death penalty, one does not. If the society with the death penalty has less murders per capita, then we know it's probably a deterrent. If not, then we know it probably isn't.I always laugh at the 'its not a deterrent' line. Really? Well I think it's going to be hard to find people who would go on record and say, 'man, because of the death penalty, I've decided not to commit first degree murder'. All they have is murders keep happening. Wow, yeah that proves its not a deterrent.Love this thinking.
Jail doesn't seem to be a deterrent so we may as well get rid of it. And since laws don't seem to deter anything, time to scrap them too.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
So every time someone equates a hike in taxation, a legitimate government function as "Big Government" they would be wrong!You can say the sky is red all you want. But it's blue. And no amount of wishing can change that.Josie Maran said:I would define Big Government differently than you, as I'm sure a lot of people would. There are aspects of society where I would agree the government has power, but expanding that power can be an expansion of "Big Government." To stick with the law enforcement theme, I think the Drug War is a perfect example.Christo said:Disagree about what? Your definition of Big Government would destroy its meaning.Josie Maran said:Gotcha. Disagree completely, but I see your point better.Christo said:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
That seems like a silly position. Who is arguing this?Love this thinking.
Jail doesn't seem to be a deterrent so we may as well get rid of it. And since laws don't seem to deter anything, time to scrap them too.
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
Seems to come up quite often from people against the death penalty. Lots and lots of papers/sites on it that seem like a giant waste of effort IMO.That seems like a silly position. Who is arguing this?Love this thinking.
Jail doesn't seem to be a deterrent so we may as well get rid of it. And since laws don't seem to deter anything, time to scrap them too.
ETA: It is a dumb argument coming from either side.
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Cat
Footballguy
and televised, too, if deterrent is the reason we kill convicts.
Koya
Footballguy
I , for one, call BS on those who claim this to not be a big govt issue.
Big govt is both the literal size of the govt along with its scope of power and responsibilities. The two certainly being linked.
Personally, I don't trust govt in general. Because it's run by people who self select to positions of power with a lack of accountability. As such, I'm wary when the govt both grows in size and bureaucracy.
I am far more concerned when the govt grows in its range of power over the freedom of its / at the expense of the freedom of its citizens ( which, usually increased said size and bureaucracy . Too somehow be against big govt but want for govt to both be allowed to kill its citizens and build the bureaucracy and mechanics to do so? It's honestly preposterous to me.
A lot of people obviously identify as such but I really can't reconcile small govt but yes executions
Big govt is both the literal size of the govt along with its scope of power and responsibilities. The two certainly being linked.
Personally, I don't trust govt in general. Because it's run by people who self select to positions of power with a lack of accountability. As such, I'm wary when the govt both grows in size and bureaucracy.
I am far more concerned when the govt grows in its range of power over the freedom of its / at the expense of the freedom of its citizens ( which, usually increased said size and bureaucracy . Too somehow be against big govt but want for govt to both be allowed to kill its citizens and build the bureaucracy and mechanics to do so? It's honestly preposterous to me.
A lot of people obviously identify as such but I really can't reconcile small govt but yes executions
Josie Maran
Footballguy
No, I'm pretty sure you're completely wrong on this one. There is no single definition of "big government."You can say the sky is red all you want. But it's blue. And no amount of wishing can change that.Josie Maran said:I would define Big Government differently than you, as I'm sure a lot of people would. There are aspects of society where I would agree the government has power, but expanding that power can be an expansion of "Big Government." To stick with the law enforcement theme, I think the Drug War is a perfect example.Christo said:Disagree about what? Your definition of Big Government would destroy its meaning.Josie Maran said:Gotcha. Disagree completely, but I see your point better.Christo said:You're ignoring the actual meaning of Big Government which is the government involving itself in matters that the government shouldn't be involved in. The criminal justice system is not one of those areas.Josie Maran said:I don't really get this argument. You're saying that increasing the level of punishment the government is permitted to carry out isn't actually increasing government power?Yet, neither have anything to do with big or small government. The only people who I know that are against the government meting out punishment for criminal activity are anarchists. Feel free to rail against the death penalty all you want. But put away the stinky Big Government red herring.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Neat board.
Fennis
Footballguy
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
We are weak up front on the lesser crimes IMO....We have to make it where these people never want to commit a crime again. Premeditated murders are the ones that need the death penalty. If you are cold and ruthless enough to plan another's murder why would we want them around....I don't get it.That's not how you reach that conclusion. The way you reach it is you examine 2 societies: one has the death penalty, one does not. If the society with the death penalty has less murders per capita, then we know it's probably a deterrent. If not, then we know it probably isn't.I always laugh at the 'its not a deterrent' line. Really? Well I think it's going to be hard to find people who would go on record and say, 'man, because of the death penalty, I've decided not to commit first degree murder'. All they have is murders keep happening. Wow, yeah that proves its not a deterrent.Love this thinking.
Jail doesn't seem to be a deterrent so we may as well get rid of it. And since laws don't seem to deter anything, time to scrap them too.
timschochet
Footballguy
That wasn't the question, though. The question, in THAT post, was whether or not the death penalty works as a deterrent. The question of whether or not certain criminals deserve the death penalty is a separate one.
My own thoughts on these two questions is as follows:
1. The death penalty is NOT a deterrent. Although this is a subjective opinion on my part, it is in part based on study after study after study, many of which can be found here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
Also from that site:
A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.
Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”
The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research.
The evidence and opinions on this are so overwhelming that, IMO, if you still believe the death penalty IS a deterrent, the burden of proof is on you.
2. The question of whether or not certain criminals deserve the death penalty is one that I honestly go back and forth on. I think it really is the key question regarding this issue- deterrence is largely irrelevant compared to this question. There is no way to empirically argue what people "deserve." Its not a question of evidence, but of moral judgment. It's my moral judgment that the state should not be taking the lives of its citizens, no matter how vile those lives are. But that is NOT a firm moral judgment; as I wrote, I've gone back and forth on this, and I respect those that disagree with me on this question.
My own thoughts on these two questions is as follows:
1. The death penalty is NOT a deterrent. Although this is a subjective opinion on my part, it is in part based on study after study after study, many of which can be found here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
Also from that site:
A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.
Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”
The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research.
The evidence and opinions on this are so overwhelming that, IMO, if you still believe the death penalty IS a deterrent, the burden of proof is on you.
2. The question of whether or not certain criminals deserve the death penalty is one that I honestly go back and forth on. I think it really is the key question regarding this issue- deterrence is largely irrelevant compared to this question. There is no way to empirically argue what people "deserve." Its not a question of evidence, but of moral judgment. It's my moral judgment that the state should not be taking the lives of its citizens, no matter how vile those lives are. But that is NOT a firm moral judgment; as I wrote, I've gone back and forth on this, and I respect those that disagree with me on this question.
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
No I don't believe it is a deterrent......A nut job killer isn't thinking about the consequences. I like it as an after the fact punishment and a money saver. I don't want my tax dollars feeding and housing a child killer or killer of the innocent... If a father kills the killer of his child, I'm ok with helping him out.
I would agree completely that the death penalty is not a deterrent for criminals committing violent crimes.
That said, on your second point, I don't think of it as "what criminals deserve" at all. Once they've taken the rights, taken the lives, away from other people? They're a waste of space/oxygen, as far as I am concerned. Rather, what I focus on is:
1. What do the families and friends of the victims of the individuals who were killed by said criminals deserve? I think most people, after the initial shock and anger of the loss has passed, want some sense of closure. Want some sort of apology from the criminal. The ability to ask them "why?" And, for at least those who might be religious, the ability to potentially forgive said criminal for their actions.
2. What does society deserve? Society deserves not to foot a $30,000/year bill to house/feed/clothe said criminals...that's for sure. Make the people in prison earn their keep, or take them out in the desert, hand them a shovel, and let them dig their own grave. A bullet or a noose doesn't cost the taxpayers anywhere near $30,000/year.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Except it doesn't save money.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
That is an argument for life in prison, not the near endless appeals of the death penalty.
It would/could, if it didn't take 190+ months from sentencing until the sentence is actually carried out: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
But it does and will! And probably should! (ETA: Assuming there is a death penalty to begin with)
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
