I'm for it but,it is mostly abused because DA's don't want to allow evidence from groups who can prove the person accoused are innocent.
Your answer is surprisingly brief, it's been a while, but I'm used to more out of you my friend...care to expound?
You both have great points in my book, thus I am on the fence a lot. I've never been extremely close to anyone murdered, and altough I'm a pretty laid back person, I carry a certain sense of hostility toward those who deserve it. Therefore I believe I would want revenge. I see where Leksola is comingfrom also, maybe I might be anger for a bi tand differently down the line.
I don't feel that capital punishment is a deterrent. People have been killing and/or raping sense the beginning of time, and capital punishment has been around longer than "capital punishment". Another problem I have with capital punishment: Reprieves are too often granted in accordance with political expediency or public fancy - having little to do with merits of the case at hand. A system like this is easily plagued by the fallacy of the false alternative - involving a multitude of situations in which limited alternatives are considered.
Huh? The debt is an illusion?! Also, so you want to revert to the penal colony era? Why reinvent the wheel? Haven't we tried that already? Rubber bullets and tear gas would be enough for sociopaths and murderers etc? Lol. Sorry. But lol. And, it still does not even address the real issue, the guilty verdict of innocent people and racial injustice in said system. THAT is the most acute issue in need to address, which your 'solution' does not address. And I this not cheaper, nor better than a modern day prison. In any regards, you need real bonafide walls, to keep em in, not some plot of land with all kinds of possibilities to escape. If people could escape Alcatraz, why do you think they wouldn't be able to escape a plot of land protected with rubber bullets and tear gas?
What you missed is a critical fact clearly stated in your links: The death penalty prisoners that do get sent to death are not more expensive that life sentences, its way cheaper. What brings up the cost is the prisoners that do not get sent to death on death row, with 20 years or more of lawyering that makes the process more expensive. So if we are perfect with the process, then, it would be cheaper. Clearly. However, the problem is the weakness in proving a guilty person, beyond all doubt and other issues ( such as racial judicial injustice and corrupt cops to name a few) that has made the system completely unable to expedite executions of clear cases AND not killing innocent people. Just based on that fact alone, I say it should be obsolete, not cost, because sending a clearly gulity person to death is cheaper than life in prison. But we are probably never going to be able to prove true guilt 100? of the time, unless we can record peoples memory so, yeah.
How pompous of you, to assume someone who hasn't lost a loved one via murder would approach this subject fairing opposition to you. You're denying a reasonable conclusion to an inductive argument. Its counterproductive to this thread and ill-mannered on your behalf (given the delicacy of this subject)
Thank you. we have been awesome about respecting each other's opinions lately. I would like to keep it up.
Debt is based on the idea I owe you something if I saybno I dont what can you do especially if I have more guns than you.
That's your opinion, you're welcome to it of course. That's some premise to an unattested argument (unless you'd like to consider your opinion) I spoke of that...
You're delusional about what an opinion is, like many.. An opinion isn't represented as fact. Look at the second quote, and try to be comprehensive. Look at the first quote, and notice how it doesn't host connotations of fact.
You could be correct, but you're overlooking critical factor. You're suggesting that it would be easier to speed up the process without the judicial red tape, yes? Well, this is where you're a bit off. Read below and follow the print in red... In short, the death penalty, in short is designed to be a long winded process, and there are no corners which can be cut. Even if the judicial process were to be "perfected", the death penalty will also come out more expensive either way, especially when factoring the expenses of the devices or methods used to finally eliminate the individual out of life. It's a matter of a cost-benefit analysis and this proves to be the case.
But oh my friend, clearly, I didn't say 'speed up the process'- its not the cost that is the real issue w death penalty, its the fact that the judicial system is broken to begin with and too many inbox.. men, too tired to repeat it, its in my post
Why not factor in all elements and problems within the system then? No issue should be singular since there are layers of problems within an institution that's clearly broken by human conjecture.
