The death penalty is necessary whenever murder, rape, or some other life-sentence (or life-sentence-worthy) crime is committed. Why put them in for life when they just get free healthcare, free food, don't work, get to lounge around with bad***es, and suck tax money? Either way, they're gonna die in prison...
Saudi Aurabia Bharein Bangladesh Botsuana China North Korea Egypt United States Indonesia Iran Irak Jordania Kuwait Malasia Mongolia Pakistán Singapur Siria Somalía Sudán Uganda Vietnam and Yemen.
Lovely countries the ones that still have de death penalty, human rights model countries arent they
The court system in the US and other countries is far from perfect, so as one respondent pointed out, using capital punishment will inevitably lead to the execution of one or more innocent people. I also agree with the point that the death penalty gives an easy escape for a guilty murderer. Better to lock him or her up for a couple of decades and force some thought about consequences of crimes. In an ideal world some rehabilitation would also occur.
I support life imprisonment with hard labor but that is cruel to the wimps out there. dont kill them. make them work their ass off for those that they hurt until they die but all is good, they have free health care!!!! :)
The only reason it costs, so much is because we don't carry it out. But I do agree with
ImEuanAndIGotsSkeelz , below. The system is not 100%, therefore there shouldnt be any 100% penalty. On the issue of deterence. Nobody ever asks people, if they would off someone, if they could get away with it. I can only speak for myself, that were it not for the threat of capital punishment, I would surely be tempted to settle a score or two.
@Sleeko11 I'm under the impression that the legal procedure for death penalty is much lengthier so it is more costly, so more expensive. As for deterrence, most murderers hold the belief that they will not be caught. As proof of the ineffectiveness, look at Canada: no death penalty, much less crime.
The only reason I believe the death penalty is unacceptable is that the system is fallible. There is no way that every single person executed is guilty of the crime they were convicted for. Therefore, you have just murdered an innocent man. One is too many and we as a society are better than that.
i dont think the death penalty is right, unless you can prove 100% that the person was guilty, which nobody can do. imagine your on death row at 18 for a crime you didnt commit, thats such a waste of a young life.
Well, the woman says at 2:10 that she doesn't have creed of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth .. It looks like our dear Christian brothers/sisters don't really read the Bible.. because this is a quotation from Exodus 21:2327. Read these short verses.
i believe in the death penalty.i think those who deserve it should get shot in the head as soon as they leave the court room.that way they dont cost us money.yay!
Essentially, I think people should be looking inward and not outward. What happens to the perpetrator does not really concern me (although the chance of mistakes is worrying), what we do to them and what it means for us does. I won't dignify the "How would you feel if it was one of your loved ones argument?" as it does not appeal to reason.
Its barbaric. The motive behind it is not protection of society or rehabilitation (both noble causes) but revenge. If you have detained someone and they pose no risk, to then kill them is excessive.
it is a point of cost .. if an animal kills or commits mayhem they should not be housed w/ free room & board for the rest of their life (if the get a life sentience) at the expense of the tax payer .. we have choices & they chose to be an animal so you put them down for good
I live in Germany and here we don't have the death penalty, and in general the German state is very lenient with sentencing convicts. Nonetheless, the murder rate in the USA is almost 6 times as high as in Germany. In Germany there are 9,7 murders per 1.000.000 inhabitants, in the USA 56,7. So obviously, the thread of strict punishment does NOT keep people from committing terrible crimes. So what is it good for?
Funny thing is, that death penalty isn`t in use in the state of Israel, altough their main religion is Judaism and its holy book contains old testament only, unlike Christians bible which include also new testament which is its founding stone.
So in the old testament its all about revenge and bloodshead, in the new testament forgiveness taught by Jesus.
A fair and good question. I believe all life is sacred, but I think defining when life begins is a tough thing to do. Right now, Americans continue a nat'l debate on abort'n, and our laws fall between banning all and allowing all, and that's a good thing. I think the less abort'ns that occur, the better: which means people need to be more open-minded about contraception and adoption as an alternative (to both abortion AND fertility clinics!) Sorry for the late reply. What's your opinion?
No one may commit murder. Not you, nor a government offcial. Rember a government offcial is still a human being. Giving a govenment offcial the right to murder is giving the government a right you do not have.
Funny how people say that "religious people" are in favor of the death penalty. My church (the Catholic Church) is firmly against it. Sacredness of life and all.
Personally I say lock 'em up for life - it is CHEAPER (really) when factoring in all of the costs (lawyers, etc).
Your church is one of the few though. And less publicized. Be happy for liberal ministers and pastors; much better than the evangelical asshole hypocrites themselves.
Christians who support "an eye for an eye" vengence are (perhaps willfully) ignorant of Jesus saying in Matthew 5:38 that an "eye for an eye," specifically, is NOT a Christian standard. Period. Stop quoting it, "Christians."
Many proponents of killing call themselves "pro-life," but they really mean pro-fetus. Once you've dared breathed their air, all bets are off, even when confronted with the inevitable murder of innocent people when humans begin deciding whom to kill in the name of justice
Ultimately it comes down to our governments(State and federal) deciding how much they want to invest in rehabilitation. If forgiveness or the belief that people can change is not part of the equation, it's becomes a moot point.
It really troubles me that America, the self proclaimed world police, still kills anyone for revenge (and tht's all it is), and then there's the fact that they still kill the mentally deficiant, people who are not in control of there own actions, KILL, KILL, KILL> that is the answer.
Tell that to Eal Washington. Also lets not forget Of course, as governor of Texas, While Bush (Jr) opposed legislation that banned executions of the mentally handicapped. He signed off on the execution of six prisoners with IQs below 70 (the general threshold measuring mental retardation)
Very few condemned killers are retarded and people know what the fuck they are doing when they tie people up and torture them to death. Funny how someone from a NATO nation that kills foreign 18 year old conscripts (who by the way, probably never murdered anyone) in their own country cries about people who actually deserve to have their ticket stamped. Of course, the twisted EU ideaology is that "war killing is ok".
I still can´t understand that the US as a civilized western country still has death penalty. It should be a matter of justice not of revenge. And somehow I have the impression it´s a relict of the old wild west days.
anony, read what happened to Jessica Lunsford , Carly Brusha, Imette St Guillen, and the Jose Medellin case . I find that most who think the death penalty is wrong would think different if 1 of these things happened to their child.
Robi, I truely can understand those feelings, but that´s revenge, an eye for an eye - thing. That´s why we invented a community with police and a law system to take that case away from those who are concerned as they can´t be neutral and objective. - Death penalty belongs to the stone age. And in the end there´s always the question: did we do this to the right and guilty person or did we murder an innocent one.
Disregarding all the other arguments. Should the government ever be allowed to murder it's own citizens ? If it's a case of an eye for an eye, then it only applies at that moment in time that the crime happened. You caught them in the act. Otherwise you open the case to so many variables that may end up with an innocent being killed.
And what's worse, an innocent being murdered or a criminal going to prison?
serial killer should be spared, they can help what they do because its a product of their upbringing or their psychological. They are no more responsible than a person is for slipping on the bathroom floor. Let them sit in jail for while and think about it. THEN if they have shown restraint over time, let them assimilate back into normal society.
It is best to be honest, so in my opinion the death penalty by law is better for humanity then how they do it in The Netherlands, using psychiatric fraud (TBS) to enprison people for the rest of their lives.
Using false science and diseases for which no proof exists they punish 'some' people with a psychiatric label factor 100x as hard. It isn't honest.
"The fish rots from the top down", a saying in Russia
Most of the time, it's a good thing economically and environmentally.
Also given how prison is seen as "free food and free rent" in today's society, death penalty will help in convincing people not to commit these horrible crimes.
its cheeper ,,,,,,, any eye for an eye ,,, where dose it stop , the killers killer must be killled ,, and the killers killers,killers have to be killed , ,and "so" on it goes , through one man sin can in to the world ,,, so and so on it goes ,,,, '
How long the Americans discuss this question? I hope you learn it before the Chinese, Saudis and Persians or North Korea. There are not much babarian countrys with death penalty any more.
In a murder case, the victim can never get their life back, there is absolutely no reason why the offender deserves to live after committing a crime like that.
If a person commits a non-violent crime of a serious nature, I don't think it justifies the death penalty. Life without parole certainly, but no death.
If anybody bothered to do a little research, they could see that violent crime rises after a death sentence has been given... it's not a deterrent and never has been!
With American Justice system If you're poor you're screwed in capital cases. The indigent are almost always left with public defenders who are often so work load over burdened they can hardly represent there clients. These defendants are also the victims of a politically motivated courts system that headline "case closed".
If people don't want to live anymore then they should be able to request death, otherwise it is pretty much of a crap shoot. Sometimes they have death without the penalty. It's called classism, or war, or 911.
death penalty is wrong, it has absolutely no deterrent effect, countries with the death penalty have higher homicide rates that countries without it in general. therefore it is a pointless form of punishment.
no its doesnt, the legal fees and litigation costs for putting someone on death row far exceed the upkeep costs for the average life expectancy of a convicted murderer
Killing murderers does not bring back the dead. Also, sometimes the legal system makes mistakes, so being in favor of the death penalty is being in favor of killing innocent people.
hail scandanavians..they say blondes are stupid well look at that, look at how the swedish girl answered at the end and how she was waiving with her hand..that person is educated in my opinion. lol
What many people do not understand is that the death penalty actually costs way more than locking up people for life. The amount of money it costs to keep someone in the slammer 'till they die is not nearly enough to cover the extensive costs incurred during the judicial procedure which leads them to be put on the death row.
Also, a number of innocents have been put to death. You can let innocents out of jail, but you can't bring 'em back when they're dead.
the only correct thing is said at 2:11 Everything else is dishonest or seen with blinders on.
A)Those saying its wrong: If it was your family slaughtered the wouldnt be worrying about barbarism. but B)To those saying "eye for an eye" If you were the one wrongly accused and sitting on death row you would suddenly be against the death penalty.
My gut says it is just for very heinous crimes; however, I suspect that my gut might be wrong. Hundreds of years ago it was considered just to publicly hang or behead a criminal, and today we look back and judge those punishments barbaric. I suspect hundreds of years from now people will look back and judge lethal injections as barbaric.
I don't believe in the death penalty, but I also don't believe in how the jail's are run... it should be punishment, not vacation. I also think that punishments should be unique to each case, not just thrown in jail like anybody else.
tough one. it's defining the line of innocence and guilt. for instance, paul bernardo here in canada has admitted to killing, raped, drilling holes in their heads and having sex with thoses holes. and my tax dollars go to keeping him alive. in cases like that, put them in general population in prison and let the other prisoners take care of it. most criminals would kill/tourture child rapists and killers.
I'm with you as far as sentiment but just realize that if criminals knew they were going to be executed only if they confessed, you'd have almost nobody confessing. Also sometimes people who aren't quite all there mentally, confess to stuff they didn't do.
Id love to see all heinous people meet a heinous end but I don't think there is any foolproof way to prevent mistakes(I dont even trust video in the computer age.) Best to just eat the rage and get em off the streets and behind bars.
It's barbaric. It costs more to execute someone than to make em suffer all their lives in prison. If someone other than the state gets to kill em first, I'm ok with that. But the government shouldn't be able to legally kill anyone.
annikee- "It costs more to execute someone than to make em suffer all their lives in prison." are you crazy? bullets are cheap. energy prices are high but not that high.
you are ignorant if you think it costs more to execute someone than to keep them alive for tens of years in prison. money wise it costs much more to house and feed someone for even a year than it would to end their life. morrally it may cost more, but money wise, it cost much more to keep them alive.
my comment that is not a reply to you helps define what i mean. When there is no doubt, dna, home movies of the killing rape and torture and the accused admits guilt, they should be put to death.
as babaric as any other form of murder, police shouldnt even have guns capable of killing. mass murderers and rapists can usually still contribute to society in some capacity. killing them only breeds contempt and submission to authority, which ultimatel leads to corruption.
i am so on the fence on this issue. i believe that death is an easy way out for the convicted to pay for their crimes... yet it costs so much of taxpayer's dollars to keep them "comfortable" in jail. a horrible example would be bernardo & holmolka- if they plea bargin against their crime partner (like holmolka did) they get taken care of. i just heard she got a free university education, paid for by taxpayers... bullshit!
Maybe you should watch the video before spouting off, the Resident sought out the opinions of a Brit, an Egyptian, a Swede and so on in making her video. She began her video by saying "lets talk about that" not "let me hear the comments of Americans only".
I am against it but - if the rules were that The Judges, Jury and the Executioner involved in any case where the now dead party was found to be not guilty they must all forfeit their lives - in a manor chosen by the family of the dead innocent (who also get all their possessions, money etc as some renumeration)
whats the point of life imprisonment if theyre going to die miserably in jail? isnt it more barbaric to torture them in jail for the rest of their lives? harsh punishments are required for harsh crimes. death penalty is not about revenge, that would be barbaric. its more of a deterrence to make people think before they act, to create a safer world.
Right person in terms of a psycho criminal? Ask those professionals and people working in the Law and enforcement career I am sure they will give you the answer.
No, I mean in terms of convicting the right person. Sometimes mistakes are made. I can list off at least 4 high profile mistaken murder convictions in the last 20 yrs in Canada alone(look up Guy Paul Morin) . I'm sure its ten times that in the U.S. If Canada had the death penalty like you favour, those guys would be dead. I'd like to hear a pro death penalty person address that issue directly. Forget about whether its barbaric.
ok u can think about it in 2 ways. If u believe in eye for an eye tooth for a tooth then the killer will die. That is good bcz then i think maybe murder rates will go down bcz a killer will know if they kill they will die to. Also the person who puts the killer to sleep becomes a killer so it contradicts itself right? The other way is let them be in jail for life. In jail they have cable tv and u.s is paying with tax $ for them. So ur wasting $ on killers to relax and watch cable.
Sign of Evolution? its a sign of Stupidity, Why should hard working Middle class people work their ass's off just so those Prisoners can have a TV and Eat food and drink afetr they have took somones Life.
how about if the antiwar peace activists kill the white trash and nigger idiots who are too stupid to figure out the simple truth about 9/11/01, and are thus traveling to places to kill innocent people.
i dont live in the usa not everyone is running around with assault rifels here so i dont think my love gets killed that fast. and as a Christian i know i see my love again when my life on earth ends.
Fines are a much better idea. I was in jail and guys were talking about they could do the 20 years to kill a child molester. Jail costs massive amounts of money to the state. My broken arm cost $2000 and I stopped riding so fast.
If it cost $80,000; 30% of wages until debt is paid, I think people would be less prepared to take that punishment.
The death penalty is only good ASSUMING the social system is fair but it's not and many people would end up in the electric chair BEFORE they are proven guilty like the past teaches us.
I don't think anyone has the right to sentence someone to death. No judge or higher power. Yes, the criminal took another life, and hope hell drags them down for the rest of their hapless life, but no one has the right to sentence someone to death - in my opinion.
In the ancient times one was honor bound to avenge injury to a close relative. Then it became the duty of the state which is good if you want to away with feuds and get people to defer to government and the rule of law. Doing away with the death penalty may encourage to take the law in their own hands and would be fraught with error.
The death penalty is immoral. If murder is immoral for an individual it should be considered immoral for the state. An eye for an eye makes the world blind.
I didn't offer "my opinion" hughster41, I offered up the Fifth Amendment of your own United States Constitution that guarantees due process for those accused of a serious crime. Your forefathers wrote the Constitution not a "Canadian".
Are you too sub-mental to recognize the difference between point of fact and opinion?
The death penalty does not work as a deterrent to crime but that is the main reason the state advocates for it. The state has also clearly demonstrated that the justice system systematically sentences more minorities and poor to death than any other social class for the same or similar crimes.
I wonder if the Resident believes in the death penalty since in her last video she was advocating that we "kill" a certain dismissive response from the American vernacular. 8^P
The troublesome aspect for me in terms of life imprisonment is the monetary costs of providing meals, housing, and security. Terms of food..those bastards may not get the best quality but they sure do have enough in quantity. WTF! If I ran it...they'd get 1 meal. That way they have less energy and are in misery.
You see these guys go to jail...and because of the meals and environment...they come out bigger, stronger, and more mean! WTF!!
In my system,they'd come out weak, broken and humbled!
People forget the US Constitution guarantees "due process" of law which for death penelty cases costs the state far more in appeals than it ever would to house the same convict for a life sentence. Does your system do away with the US Constitution first?
Would you mind explaining how you did your calculations, bikenik? How do appeals cost the state far more than housing a convict for life? Even using the modest cost of $100/day, over, say, 50 years, that would be almost $2 mil to house a convict for life. How would several appeals amount to "far more" than that?
Because the appeals process for a death row convict can go on for years. Its not unusual for these case to be appealed for ten to twenty years. So you have state appointed lawyers working for the defendant at probably $75-$100/hr or more, plus the costs of running a larger court system with high cost judges, while at the same time the convicted sits in a prison cell costing the state $100/day to keep him there. That's three cost streams instead of only one.
Wait a minute: you're counting the cost of keeping him in prison as a death penalty cost; when if there was no death penalty he'd sit in prison anyway?
In any case, I think 10-20 years is a bit high. But, even so, most of the time with these appeals it's just waiting for a hearing. Or waiting for a judge to review a brief that has been filed. The number of actual appearances in court is rather small.
Furthermore, court-appointed attorneys don't get very much (which is one of the reasons...
...many don't like to do those cases). Also, most of the people dragging out these appeals for years are people who are volunteering to represent the person because they believe in his innocence.
So the legal fees for court-appointed attys, plus the cost of court time and judges spent on appeals may run into the 10's of thousands. Maybe 100's of thousands. But nowhere near $2 mil, and certainly not "far more" than $2 mil!!
Note that I'm not saying through this comment anything in favor or against the death penalty. I'm merely pointing out how empty your statement is that it costs "far more" to have an appeals process than it does to keep them in prison for life. In fact, it doesn't even come close to how much it costs to imprison them for life (not that cost should be the decider, anyway).
I think a lot of the convicts are men in their early 20's. That would give them about 50 years in prison.
But even if it were half that, say 25 years (which I'm sure it would at least be), that would be $1 mil. The cost of appeals would still only be a fraction of that -- certainly not "far more" than $1 mil!
Again: I'm not arguing that cost should be the deciding factor. I'm only pointing out how flawed your statement was.
The web site you pointed me to is obviously put up by people against the death penalty. And, as such, the legitimacy and completeness of such representations should be questioned and not taken as absolutes.
Nevertheless, I did a search, as well, and came up with this:
dpinfo(.)com/cost_comparisons(.)htm
It refutes the arguments made by the site you pointed me to, and show the alternate view to those data.
Wait a minute, the website posts studies that were done by others and while no study is perfect, there is at least findings of studies presented on that website.
On the website you present there are criticisms of studies in general but none in particular and no concrete findings from individual studies that contradict the published evidence.
What I'm saying is that it's very possible to pick and choose from "studies" only the parts that help your cause. Simply citing "studies" is not enough to get a balanced view, as anyone whose read manipulated data knows.
Re. stuides that "contradict the published evidence," first, consider that common sense tells you that it would be less costly to put someone to death than to keep them in prison their whole life. Thus, those who oppose that view have done studies that show [cont]
(in their minds) that what seems intuitively obvious is not the case. Hence, the studies you cite. Those who hold to what is obvious (that the costs of an appeals process - even a lengthy one - is not going to match housing someone in a maximum security prison for life) would be less-inclined to do studies, since they're not trying to disprove the obvious. Thus, there may not be many such studies to choose from.
Nevertheless, disputing a stated argument is a valid point of view,[cont]
even if one does not cite studies that explicitly prove the converse. If you tell me that it costs more money to build a bridge than a tunnel; and I cite flaws in your studies; that, in and of itself, is a valid argument, even if I don't have studies that show it costs more to build a tunnel than a bridge.
In any case, it seems to me that a lot of these arguments are subjective - how much are we estimating that this would cost vs. what that would cost - and I'm not sure there [cont]
would be an argument that would satisfy those who hold to the statistics cited in those studies. I agree with the site I shared with you, that much of this data is misrepresented and distorted; but, without delving into the studies in detail and picking through them piece by piece, I doubt you and I will be satisfied with either's POV. Hence, it might be best to leave it at that, that there are arguments for both positions, and move on.
So you agree it's best to agree that we disagree? I mean, I'd hate to beat this to death; there would be penalty in that... (OK, that doesn't even qualify as a "bad pun"... Sorry.... :-( )
BTW, I notice you got a +1 on your "agree to disagree" post. Apparently someone out there is tired of our discussion..... :-/
My comment has nothing 2 do with ur tangent about due process and/or the Constitution.
Why do criminals have no problem w/ going back 2 jail when they R released? It's because they R not afraid of it.
The phrase "rot in jail" doesn't apply n the US. Criminals actually thrive. Why is the sentiment "U wouldn't want 2 go 2 a Turkish/Chinese Prison etc."
Y isn't that the reputation of jail here n the USA. Some argue,what about innocent..true..but I've never come close 2 going to jail...have U?
Rewarding criminals with a four stars hotel,disfunctional minds should be punish accordingly, a functional productive mind should be protected,
Your idealist vision toward criminals makes the world a dangerous place for the average functional citizens who works and obeys the law, normal people like you and me, we've been too rational about crimimals who been in the prison system for decades, if they know the consequences why is it they don't obey the law? Death penalty an evil necessity
The logic of the death penalty is as beautiful as the religion which created it. In order to keep people from killing people, we kill the people who have killed people, and this will keep the people who kill people from killing people. Now let's move on to Noah's ark.
The death penalty is necessary whenever murder, rape, or some other life-sentence (or life-sentence-worthy) crime is committed. Why put them in for life when they just get free healthcare, free food, don't work, get to lounge around with bad***es, and suck tax money? Either way, they're gonna die in prison...
WWhiteSShadow 2 months ago
Sweden's attitude towards breasts ? HUGE...go sweden!
Grange34 2 months ago
fuck the death penalty
edwardd6681 3 months ago
Saudi Aurabia Bharein Bangladesh Botsuana China North Korea Egypt United States Indonesia Iran Irak Jordania Kuwait Malasia Mongolia Pakistán Singapur Siria Somalía Sudán Uganda Vietnam and Yemen.
Lovely countries the ones that still have de death penalty, human rights model countries arent they
Alejandrocatheycv 6 months ago
Making out the monkeys from the humans in this video was pretty easy.
Vilemk0 1 year ago
The problem is that advances in science has proved people to be innocent ten years after their conviction. If we just kill them we would never know.
5959512 1 year ago
The court system in the US and other countries is far from perfect, so as one respondent pointed out, using capital punishment will inevitably lead to the execution of one or more innocent people. I also agree with the point that the death penalty gives an easy escape for a guilty murderer. Better to lock him or her up for a couple of decades and force some thought about consequences of crimes. In an ideal world some rehabilitation would also occur.
gsco82 1 year ago
So if you kill someone they say its wrong for ANY reason, but if they kill you for THEIR reasons then its ok, right??? Dosen't make sense to me.
MyCorey420 1 year ago
@MyCorey420 A civilized and organized society cannot work with the criminal mind of a murderer. Murderers may play dirty, but society must be clean.
galanom79 4 months ago
I support life imprisonment with hard labor but that is cruel to the wimps out there. dont kill them. make them work their ass off for those that they hurt until they die but all is good, they have free health care!!!! :)
STILLNAKEDBULLWINKLE 1 year ago
Who are we to play God with lives. Who are we to cling to our evolving senses of justice, while ignoring blatant contradictions?
zenzombie72 1 year ago
Studies have proven that it's far more expensive to kill someone than it is to keep them in prison for the rest of there lives.
scorpionkings 2 years ago
The only reason it costs, so much is because we don't carry it out. But I do agree with
ImEuanAndIGotsSkeelz , below. The system is not 100%, therefore there shouldnt be any 100% penalty. On the issue of deterence. Nobody ever asks people, if they would off someone, if they could get away with it. I can only speak for myself, that were it not for the threat of capital punishment, I would surely be tempted to settle a score or two.
Sleeko11 1 year ago
@Sleeko11 I'm under the impression that the legal procedure for death penalty is much lengthier so it is more costly, so more expensive. As for deterrence, most murderers hold the belief that they will not be caught. As proof of the ineffectiveness, look at Canada: no death penalty, much less crime.
galanom79 4 months ago
The only reason I believe the death penalty is unacceptable is that the system is fallible. There is no way that every single person executed is guilty of the crime they were convicted for. Therefore, you have just murdered an innocent man. One is too many and we as a society are better than that.
matamandotcom 2 years ago
i dont think the death penalty is right, unless you can prove 100% that the person was guilty, which nobody can do. imagine your on death row at 18 for a crime you didnt commit, thats such a waste of a young life.
ImEuanAndIGotsSkeelz 2 years ago
Oh the timeline is 2:7 and Reference is Exodus ch. 21 Verse. 23 till 27
letsknow 2 years ago
Well, the woman says at 2:10 that she doesn't have creed of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth .. It looks like our dear Christian brothers/sisters don't really read the Bible.. because this is a quotation from Exodus 21:2327. Read these short verses.
letsknow 2 years ago
Matthew 5: 21-26 and 5: 38-48
vladthecomrade 2 years ago
I support the dealth penalty in certain cases.
silentsoliloquy82 2 years ago 4
2:44-
Random....
That Swedish woman is so tall. O_O
silentsoliloquy82 2 years ago
The punishment should fit the crime.
If someone kills another person, they should be killed.
It's not murder, it's justice, and will help prevent future crimes by others.
Chris Brown beat Rihanna, then Chris should get a good beating, that's justice, and will prevent him from beating her again.
dstone2004 2 years ago
i think in terms of chris brown it should be beaten and then some.
fuck that bow wearing tool
tzweck 2 years ago
i believe in the death penalty.i think those who deserve it should get shot in the head as soon as they leave the court room.that way they dont cost us money.yay!
ravensmyname 2 years ago
It's so easy to sit outside of someones pain and suffering and say the murderer of thier child should not be killed because 'it does'nt affect me'
robi2000 2 years ago
Many of the hideous crimes committed these days deserve Death Penalties. A family should often have the right to revenge. I can be very healing.
robi2000 2 years ago
lol wauzi123 their is like 300,000,000 of us people and like what 5,000,000 of germans? so no shit the murder rate is going to be higher
jarhead1771 2 years ago
jarhead, there's a lot more than 5million Germans.
robi2000 2 years ago
Essentially, I think people should be looking inward and not outward. What happens to the perpetrator does not really concern me (although the chance of mistakes is worrying), what we do to them and what it means for us does. I won't dignify the "How would you feel if it was one of your loved ones argument?" as it does not appeal to reason.
yohaneuano4 2 years ago
yo, sometimes it appeals to reality
robi2000 2 years ago
Its barbaric. The motive behind it is not protection of society or rehabilitation (both noble causes) but revenge. If you have detained someone and they pose no risk, to then kill them is excessive.
yohaneuano4 2 years ago
it is a point of cost .. if an animal kills or commits mayhem they should not be housed w/ free room & board for the rest of their life (if the get a life sentience) at the expense of the tax payer .. we have choices & they chose to be an animal so you put them down for good
talonzhar 2 years ago
I live in Germany and here we don't have the death penalty, and in general the German state is very lenient with sentencing convicts. Nonetheless, the murder rate in the USA is almost 6 times as high as in Germany. In Germany there are 9,7 murders per 1.000.000 inhabitants, in the USA 56,7. So obviously, the thread of strict punishment does NOT keep people from committing terrible crimes. So what is it good for?
wauzi123 2 years ago
Funny thing is, that death penalty isn`t in use in the state of Israel, altough their main religion is Judaism and its holy book contains old testament only, unlike Christians bible which include also new testament which is its founding stone.
So in the old testament its all about revenge and bloodshead, in the new testament forgiveness taught by Jesus.
Vapaamuurari 2 years ago
I prefer Jesus. :)
wauzi123 2 years ago
A fair and good question. I believe all life is sacred, but I think defining when life begins is a tough thing to do. Right now, Americans continue a nat'l debate on abort'n, and our laws fall between banning all and allowing all, and that's a good thing. I think the less abort'ns that occur, the better: which means people need to be more open-minded about contraception and adoption as an alternative (to both abortion AND fertility clinics!) Sorry for the late reply. What's your opinion?
apostropheYes 2 years ago
No one may commit murder. Not you, nor a government offcial. Rember a government offcial is still a human being. Giving a govenment offcial the right to murder is giving the government a right you do not have.
avengemm9dog 2 years ago
A wise man once said "If everyone believed in 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' then the whole world would be blind and toothless"
Koust 2 years ago 9
@Koust Gandhi said that.
Imran500 1 year ago
@Koust he wasn't wise then
MrSkate4weed 3 months ago
Funny how people say that "religious people" are in favor of the death penalty. My church (the Catholic Church) is firmly against it. Sacredness of life and all.
Personally I say lock 'em up for life - it is CHEAPER (really) when factoring in all of the costs (lawyers, etc).
dsmoya31410 2 years ago
Your church is one of the few though. And less publicized. Be happy for liberal ministers and pastors; much better than the evangelical asshole hypocrites themselves.
Deadbirdcheese 2 years ago
the guy in 2:00 looks familiar, ive seen him on a tv show i think lol
lllHanzolll 2 years ago
i think death penalty should be like, being carried out by the victims family members infront of the authorities.
lllHanzolll 2 years ago
In the end it really does not matter, but the hypocrisy behind it all is amusing.
TargetGuy2245 2 years ago
No to death, yes to disablement, simle.
Palendrome69 2 years ago
I find that most who are antiDeath Penalty refuse to read the reports about horrible murder cases like 11 yr. old Carly Brusha. They avoid reality.
robi2000 2 years ago
Christians who support "an eye for an eye" vengence are (perhaps willfully) ignorant of Jesus saying in Matthew 5:38 that an "eye for an eye," specifically, is NOT a Christian standard. Period. Stop quoting it, "Christians."
Many proponents of killing call themselves "pro-life," but they really mean pro-fetus. Once you've dared breathed their air, all bets are off, even when confronted with the inevitable murder of innocent people when humans begin deciding whom to kill in the name of justice
xOLDxCOWBOYx 2 years ago 2
I agree with you this eye for an eye is actually the opposite of Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine is basically giving the other cheek.
versmex87 2 years ago
Ultimately it comes down to our governments(State and federal) deciding how much they want to invest in rehabilitation. If forgiveness or the belief that people can change is not part of the equation, it's becomes a moot point.
mak1ty78 2 years ago
It really troubles me that America, the self proclaimed world police, still kills anyone for revenge (and tht's all it is), and then there's the fact that they still kill the mentally deficiant, people who are not in control of there own actions, KILL, KILL, KILL> that is the answer.
DARRBEV 2 years ago
DAR, the 'kill, kill, kill scenario does not exist in american justice.
robi2000 2 years ago
Tell that to Eal Washington. Also lets not forget Of course, as governor of Texas, While Bush (Jr) opposed legislation that banned executions of the mentally handicapped. He signed off on the execution of six prisoners with IQs below 70 (the general threshold measuring mental retardation)
DARRBEV 2 years ago 2
Very few condemned killers are retarded and people know what the fuck they are doing when they tie people up and torture them to death. Funny how someone from a NATO nation that kills foreign 18 year old conscripts (who by the way, probably never murdered anyone) in their own country cries about people who actually deserve to have their ticket stamped. Of course, the twisted EU ideaology is that "war killing is ok".
TargetGuy2245 2 years ago
bush should face a death penalty
benvindo05 2 years ago
I still can´t understand that the US as a civilized western country still has death penalty. It should be a matter of justice not of revenge. And somehow I have the impression it´s a relict of the old wild west days.
anonymusum 2 years ago
anony, read what happened to Jessica Lunsford , Carly Brusha, Imette St Guillen, and the Jose Medellin case . I find that most who think the death penalty is wrong would think different if 1 of these things happened to their child.
robi2000 2 years ago
Robi, I truely can understand those feelings, but that´s revenge, an eye for an eye - thing. That´s why we invented a community with police and a law system to take that case away from those who are concerned as they can´t be neutral and objective. - Death penalty belongs to the stone age. And in the end there´s always the question: did we do this to the right and guilty person or did we murder an innocent one.
anonymusum 2 years ago
Disregarding all the other arguments. Should the government ever be allowed to murder it's own citizens ? If it's a case of an eye for an eye, then it only applies at that moment in time that the crime happened. You caught them in the act. Otherwise you open the case to so many variables that may end up with an innocent being killed.
And what's worse, an innocent being murdered or a criminal going to prison?
Morocen 2 years ago
ano, if u read 1 case you will see that some are still in the stone age
robi2000 2 years ago
The death penalty is a mockery of justice. If we're going to to be just, we have to stand on higher ground than those we are condemning.
apostropheYes 2 years ago
oops i meant they can't help what they do
airrick16 2 years ago
serial killer should be spared, they can help what they do because its a product of their upbringing or their psychological. They are no more responsible than a person is for slipping on the bathroom floor. Let them sit in jail for while and think about it. THEN if they have shown restraint over time, let them assimilate back into normal society.
airrick16 2 years ago
It is best to be honest, so in my opinion the death penalty by law is better for humanity then how they do it in The Netherlands, using psychiatric fraud (TBS) to enprison people for the rest of their lives.
Using false science and diseases for which no proof exists they punish 'some' people with a psychiatric label factor 100x as hard. It isn't honest.
"The fish rots from the top down", a saying in Russia
PsyReporter 2 years ago
I love swedish people. I hate americans, they are so fuckin stupid and un-evolved..
LittleEmoBoy001 2 years ago
Good job again Lori
bille2588 2 years ago
Most of the time, it's a good thing economically and environmentally.
Also given how prison is seen as "free food and free rent" in today's society, death penalty will help in convincing people not to commit these horrible crimes.
ssh83 2 years ago
I've never understood how letting someone go to sleep is a just punishment.
adt33 2 years ago
its cheeper ,,,,,,, any eye for an eye ,,, where dose it stop , the killers killer must be killled ,, and the killers killers,killers have to be killed , ,and "so" on it goes , through one man sin can in to the world ,,, so and so on it goes ,,,, '
OrphanPaper 2 years ago
The swedish girl said "alltså you know". Nice swenglish there!
Nuker1337 2 years ago
State sanctioned murder is still murder. I believe that capital punishment is as wrong as the crimes it is used as a punishment for.
fsamuels 2 years ago
I think one time murderers should get life imprisonment, and repeaters should get death.
LoonyLooners 2 years ago
The justice system is not and never was for punishment and revenge.
It's to rehabilitate them, and bring them back to function in society normally. If this isn't possible, then lock them up for life.
Basically, do whatever is best for society, but murder is a line that should never be crossed.
Also, there's the point of, what if someone's been wrongly accused?
curiousmind5632 2 years ago
Interesting but I think the more important question is not what to do after the crime occurs, but ask how can crime be prevented.
tepidarium 2 years ago
Comment removed
tepidarium 2 years ago
Two crimes should get you killed, Murder 1, and Treason. That's how it should be
Thurm2223 2 years ago
How long the Americans discuss this question? I hope you learn it before the Chinese, Saudis and Persians or North Korea. There are not much babarian countrys with death penalty any more.
Alcetes 2 years ago
In a murder case, the victim can never get their life back, there is absolutely no reason why the offender deserves to live after committing a crime like that.
If a person commits a non-violent crime of a serious nature, I don't think it justifies the death penalty. Life without parole certainly, but no death.
dhl1986 2 years ago
Obama's the Antichrist scandal blowing. Lots of birth-issue videos !
"Birthers on the Hill" video's # 1, 3, 15 in U Tube categories.
150 000 views in 48 hours and is now listed with *125* other similar videos !!!
Other birth issue videos: my favs # 2 "Eileen-Mike Castle" video, has 750 000 views.
My favs # 3 "Eileen, Lady in Red" says Obama is the Antichrist.
Fav # 1 The Marks of the Beast of Antichrist Obama.
KalachakraandOBeast 2 years ago
I agree with Swedish lady.
Knewtz 2 years ago
Don't mess with the one guy "I'd take care of it myself"
PukuTheBear 2 years ago
If anybody bothered to do a little research, they could see that violent crime rises after a death sentence has been given... it's not a deterrent and never has been!
With American Justice system If you're poor you're screwed in capital cases. The indigent are almost always left with public defenders who are often so work load over burdened they can hardly represent there clients. These defendants are also the victims of a politically motivated courts system that headline "case closed".
Pleblian 2 years ago
If people don't want to live anymore then they should be able to request death, otherwise it is pretty much of a crap shoot. Sometimes they have death without the penalty. It's called classism, or war, or 911.
hypnofan35 2 years ago
death penalty is wrong, it has absolutely no deterrent effect, countries with the death penalty have higher homicide rates that countries without it in general. therefore it is a pointless form of punishment.
taskmasterlax 2 years ago
It saves money in the long run, so just fucking kill them.
ProcyonAlpha 2 years ago
no its doesnt, the legal fees and litigation costs for putting someone on death row far exceed the upkeep costs for the average life expectancy of a convicted murderer
taskmasterlax 2 years ago
the death penalty is ttyl just. if sum1 killed sum1 i loved, i wood LOVE 2 have them 2 b put 2 death so i woodnt have 2 deal with that person anymore
ImSmartUrNotBooHoo 2 years ago
viacom employees get death penalty.
faszika 2 years ago
Killing murderers does not bring back the dead. Also, sometimes the legal system makes mistakes, so being in favor of the death penalty is being in favor of killing innocent people.
Thanks for bringing up the issue.
jayraskin 2 years ago
you are better than this Lori. . .
you wouldn't be asking, are "blacks" inferior to "white people" ?
stay a wolf don't let the common folk turn you into a sheep. . . .
th3inquisitiv31 2 years ago
Damn, is it me or was there way too many conservatives in Time Square that day?
mjr256 2 years ago
Just you.
ProcyonAlpha 2 years ago
I'm totally against the death penalty, however I totally agree with the guy at 2:33.
silentthriller 2 years ago
Death penalty is barbaric. No shit there Einstein.
oblibious47 2 years ago
hail scandanavians..they say blondes are stupid well look at that, look at how the swedish girl answered at the end and how she was waiving with her hand..that person is educated in my opinion. lol
zibanad 2 years ago
What many people do not understand is that the death penalty actually costs way more than locking up people for life. The amount of money it costs to keep someone in the slammer 'till they die is not nearly enough to cover the extensive costs incurred during the judicial procedure which leads them to be put on the death row.
Also, a number of innocents have been put to death. You can let innocents out of jail, but you can't bring 'em back when they're dead.
NO TO THE DEATH PENALTY!
frickinmatchbox 2 years ago
there is nothing to ask death penalty should be allowed for some instances murderers and stuff...
Zerathul123 2 years ago
It's totally barbaric. You don't punish rapists by raping them, you don't punish theft by stealing from the person.. plus it's NOT a deterrant.
recapitulation 2 years ago
the only correct thing is said at 2:11 Everything else is dishonest or seen with blinders on.
A)Those saying its wrong: If it was your family slaughtered the wouldnt be worrying about barbarism. but B)To those saying "eye for an eye" If you were the one wrongly accused and sitting on death row you would suddenly be against the death penalty.
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
My gut says it is just for very heinous crimes; however, I suspect that my gut might be wrong. Hundreds of years ago it was considered just to publicly hang or behead a criminal, and today we look back and judge those punishments barbaric. I suspect hundreds of years from now people will look back and judge lethal injections as barbaric.
arodin 2 years ago
I don't believe in the death penalty, but I also don't believe in how the jail's are run... it should be punishment, not vacation. I also think that punishments should be unique to each case, not just thrown in jail like anybody else.
DarthCripple 2 years ago
For committing the same crimes, minorities get the death penalty more often than Whites.
That's why the death penalty is immoral: Humans are too impefect to be given the legal power to end life.
deadbutmoving 2 years ago 6
Well said.
Amy31415 2 years ago
tough one. it's defining the line of innocence and guilt. for instance, paul bernardo here in canada has admitted to killing, raped, drilling holes in their heads and having sex with thoses holes. and my tax dollars go to keeping him alive. in cases like that, put them in general population in prison and let the other prisoners take care of it. most criminals would kill/tourture child rapists and killers.
pornfartin 2 years ago
I'm with you as far as sentiment but just realize that if criminals knew they were going to be executed only if they confessed, you'd have almost nobody confessing. Also sometimes people who aren't quite all there mentally, confess to stuff they didn't do.
Id love to see all heinous people meet a heinous end but I don't think there is any foolproof way to prevent mistakes(I dont even trust video in the computer age.) Best to just eat the rage and get em off the streets and behind bars.
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
It's barbaric. It costs more to execute someone than to make em suffer all their lives in prison. If someone other than the state gets to kill em first, I'm ok with that. But the government shouldn't be able to legally kill anyone.
annikee59 2 years ago
annikee- "It costs more to execute someone than to make em suffer all their lives in prison." are you crazy? bullets are cheap. energy prices are high but not that high.
pornfartin 2 years ago
Are you ignorant or trrying to be funny? Hard to tell.
annikee59 2 years ago
you are ignorant if you think it costs more to execute someone than to keep them alive for tens of years in prison. money wise it costs much more to house and feed someone for even a year than it would to end their life. morrally it may cost more, but money wise, it cost much more to keep them alive.
pornfartin 2 years ago
Ah, ignorant. Look up facts before you embarass yourself. Appeals cost millions.
annikee59 2 years ago
my comment that is not a reply to you helps define what i mean. When there is no doubt, dna, home movies of the killing rape and torture and the accused admits guilt, they should be put to death.
pornfartin 2 years ago
Hi Lori Harfenist a sweet kiss from Italy
Prince GTO
Princegto 2 years ago
as babaric as any other form of murder, police shouldnt even have guns capable of killing. mass murderers and rapists can usually still contribute to society in some capacity. killing them only breeds contempt and submission to authority, which ultimatel leads to corruption.
TheRetardedChristian 2 years ago
How many people have been put to death and were later found innocent?
xxhintoftearsxx 2 years ago
Probably quite a few, but one is too many.
ffliz217 2 years ago
Agreed.
xxhintoftearsxx 2 years ago
i am so on the fence on this issue. i believe that death is an easy way out for the convicted to pay for their crimes... yet it costs so much of taxpayer's dollars to keep them "comfortable" in jail. a horrible example would be bernardo & holmolka- if they plea bargin against their crime partner (like holmolka did) they get taken care of. i just heard she got a free university education, paid for by taxpayers... bullshit!
tmblweed72157 2 years ago
Maybe you should watch the video before spouting off, the Resident sought out the opinions of a Brit, an Egyptian, a Swede and so on in making her video. She began her video by saying "lets talk about that" not "let me hear the comments of Americans only".
bikenik 2 years ago
I have a problem with state- sponsored murder. I don't see how it can be justified.
Weaselheadx 2 years ago
why are the best looking guys the dumbest?
foititis 2 years ago
I am against it but - if the rules were that The Judges, Jury and the Executioner involved in any case where the now dead party was found to be not guilty they must all forfeit their lives - in a manor chosen by the family of the dead innocent (who also get all their possessions, money etc as some renumeration)
thenewvoice8 2 years ago
whats the point of life imprisonment if theyre going to die miserably in jail? isnt it more barbaric to torture them in jail for the rest of their lives? harsh punishments are required for harsh crimes. death penalty is not about revenge, that would be barbaric. its more of a deterrence to make people think before they act, to create a safer world.
clementckw 2 years ago
barbarian cultures understood the concept of justice. So barbaric AND just.
DarkDennis1961 2 years ago
an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
agthang 2 years ago
I believe in the death penalty.
1happiness 2 years ago
how do you ensure you have the right person?
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
Right person in terms of a psycho criminal? Ask those professionals and people working in the Law and enforcement career I am sure they will give you the answer.
1happiness 2 years ago
They don't all give the same answer though.
uberjim83 2 years ago
Comment removed
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
"Right person in terms of a psycho criminal?"
No, I mean in terms of convicting the right person. Sometimes mistakes are made. I can list off at least 4 high profile mistaken murder convictions in the last 20 yrs in Canada alone(look up Guy Paul Morin) . I'm sure its ten times that in the U.S. If Canada had the death penalty like you favour, those guys would be dead. I'd like to hear a pro death penalty person address that issue directly. Forget about whether its barbaric.
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
holy hell that Swedish chick is tall. kinda hot too :)
canadianeh24 2 years ago
ok u can think about it in 2 ways. If u believe in eye for an eye tooth for a tooth then the killer will die. That is good bcz then i think maybe murder rates will go down bcz a killer will know if they kill they will die to. Also the person who puts the killer to sleep becomes a killer so it contradicts itself right? The other way is let them be in jail for life. In jail they have cable tv and u.s is paying with tax $ for them. So ur wasting $ on killers to relax and watch cable.
syrianbrown3y3s 2 years ago
Sign of Evolution? its a sign of Stupidity, Why should hard working Middle class people work their ass's off just so those Prisoners can have a TV and Eat food and drink afetr they have took somones Life.
AbdodoxD 2 years ago
i think the family and friends should have a few hours unattended in a room with the killer. mmm sweet justice.
NoOdL3z18 2 years ago
how about if the antiwar peace activists kill the white trash and nigger idiots who are too stupid to figure out the simple truth about 9/11/01, and are thus traveling to places to kill innocent people.
halliburtoncrusher 2 years ago
im not against killing killers, im just not comfortable with having executors in any form. or bad judgements with death penalty around.
logoth80 2 years ago
By killing killiers makes you a killer jackass!!!
Alexander021 2 years ago
doh. thats why i said im not comfortable with having it.
logoth80 2 years ago
How about if they let the Parent of the Victim execute the Killer?
AbdodoxD 2 years ago
Some crimes are so heinous they should be punished with death.
emopope 2 years ago
well its obviosly not working in America.
Valmir238 2 years ago
eye for an eye bullshit no human has the right to decide above live and death!
TTrevolverheldTT 2 years ago
until your loved one gets killed, maybe you can just lock them up and u can even take care of them so the other people dont have to
dustinchen 2 years ago
i dont live in the usa not everyone is running around with assault rifels here so i dont think my love gets killed that fast. and as a Christian i know i see my love again when my life on earth ends.
TTrevolverheldTT 2 years ago
Fines are a much better idea. I was in jail and guys were talking about they could do the 20 years to kill a child molester. Jail costs massive amounts of money to the state. My broken arm cost $2000 and I stopped riding so fast.
If it cost $80,000; 30% of wages until debt is paid, I think people would be less prepared to take that punishment.
peaceandloveletsblow 2 years ago
video quality is not good
freesoul2005 2 years ago
The death penalty is only good ASSUMING the social system is fair but it's not and many people would end up in the electric chair BEFORE they are proven guilty like the past teaches us.
AdiemusBC 2 years ago 2
I don't think anyone has the right to sentence someone to death. No judge or higher power. Yes, the criminal took another life, and hope hell drags them down for the rest of their hapless life, but no one has the right to sentence someone to death - in my opinion.
Exxtras 2 years ago
Let God sort them out.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
In the ancient times one was honor bound to avenge injury to a close relative. Then it became the duty of the state which is good if you want to away with feuds and get people to defer to government and the rule of law. Doing away with the death penalty may encourage to take the law in their own hands and would be fraught with error.
httprover 2 years ago
The death penalty is immoral. If murder is immoral for an individual it should be considered immoral for the state. An eye for an eye makes the world blind.
tetsubo57 2 years ago
Hmm, I wonder if people in prison should be counted as employed or unemployed.
cnapcra 2 years ago
I didn't offer "my opinion" hughster41, I offered up the Fifth Amendment of your own United States Constitution that guarantees due process for those accused of a serious crime. Your forefathers wrote the Constitution not a "Canadian".
Are you too sub-mental to recognize the difference between point of fact and opinion?
bikenik 2 years ago
The death penalty does not work as a deterrent to crime but that is the main reason the state advocates for it. The state has also clearly demonstrated that the justice system systematically sentences more minorities and poor to death than any other social class for the same or similar crimes.
I wonder if the Resident believes in the death penalty since in her last video she was advocating that we "kill" a certain dismissive response from the American vernacular. 8^P
bikenik 2 years ago
The troublesome aspect for me in terms of life imprisonment is the monetary costs of providing meals, housing, and security. Terms of food..those bastards may not get the best quality but they sure do have enough in quantity. WTF! If I ran it...they'd get 1 meal. That way they have less energy and are in misery.
You see these guys go to jail...and because of the meals and environment...they come out bigger, stronger, and more mean! WTF!!
In my system,they'd come out weak, broken and humbled!
TheyROutThere 2 years ago
People forget the US Constitution guarantees "due process" of law which for death penelty cases costs the state far more in appeals than it ever would to house the same convict for a life sentence. Does your system do away with the US Constitution first?
bikenik 2 years ago
Would you mind explaining how you did your calculations, bikenik? How do appeals cost the state far more than housing a convict for life? Even using the modest cost of $100/day, over, say, 50 years, that would be almost $2 mil to house a convict for life. How would several appeals amount to "far more" than that?
nrgins 2 years ago
Because the appeals process for a death row convict can go on for years. Its not unusual for these case to be appealed for ten to twenty years. So you have state appointed lawyers working for the defendant at probably $75-$100/hr or more, plus the costs of running a larger court system with high cost judges, while at the same time the convicted sits in a prison cell costing the state $100/day to keep him there. That's three cost streams instead of only one.
bikenik 2 years ago
Wait a minute: you're counting the cost of keeping him in prison as a death penalty cost; when if there was no death penalty he'd sit in prison anyway?
In any case, I think 10-20 years is a bit high. But, even so, most of the time with these appeals it's just waiting for a hearing. Or waiting for a judge to review a brief that has been filed. The number of actual appearances in court is rather small.
Furthermore, court-appointed attorneys don't get very much (which is one of the reasons...
nrgins 2 years ago
[Part 2]
...many don't like to do those cases). Also, most of the people dragging out these appeals for years are people who are volunteering to represent the person because they believe in his innocence.
So the legal fees for court-appointed attys, plus the cost of court time and judges spent on appeals may run into the 10's of thousands. Maybe 100's of thousands. But nowhere near $2 mil, and certainly not "far more" than $2 mil!!
nrgins 2 years ago
[Part 3]
Note that I'm not saying through this comment anything in favor or against the death penalty. I'm merely pointing out how empty your statement is that it costs "far more" to have an appeals process than it does to keep them in prison for life. In fact, it doesn't even come close to how much it costs to imprison them for life (not that cost should be the decider, anyway).
nrgins 2 years ago
Is that the average prison term for a murderer; fifty years?
bikenik 2 years ago
I think a lot of the convicts are men in their early 20's. That would give them about 50 years in prison.
But even if it were half that, say 25 years (which I'm sure it would at least be), that would be $1 mil. The cost of appeals would still only be a fraction of that -- certainly not "far more" than $1 mil!
Again: I'm not arguing that cost should be the deciding factor. I'm only pointing out how flawed your statement was.
nrgins 2 years ago
I did a simple search on the net and found this:
deathpenaltyinfo(dot)org/costs-death-penalty
You should check it out nrgins to see who's statements are flawed.
bikenik 2 years ago
The web site you pointed me to is obviously put up by people against the death penalty. And, as such, the legitimacy and completeness of such representations should be questioned and not taken as absolutes.
Nevertheless, I did a search, as well, and came up with this:
dpinfo(.)com/cost_comparisons(.)htm
It refutes the arguments made by the site you pointed me to, and show the alternate view to those data.
nrgins 2 years ago
Wait a minute, the website posts studies that were done by others and while no study is perfect, there is at least findings of studies presented on that website.
On the website you present there are criticisms of studies in general but none in particular and no concrete findings from individual studies that contradict the published evidence.
bikenik 2 years ago
What I'm saying is that it's very possible to pick and choose from "studies" only the parts that help your cause. Simply citing "studies" is not enough to get a balanced view, as anyone whose read manipulated data knows.
Re. stuides that "contradict the published evidence," first, consider that common sense tells you that it would be less costly to put someone to death than to keep them in prison their whole life. Thus, those who oppose that view have done studies that show [cont]
nrgins 2 years ago
[Part 2]
(in their minds) that what seems intuitively obvious is not the case. Hence, the studies you cite. Those who hold to what is obvious (that the costs of an appeals process - even a lengthy one - is not going to match housing someone in a maximum security prison for life) would be less-inclined to do studies, since they're not trying to disprove the obvious. Thus, there may not be many such studies to choose from.
Nevertheless, disputing a stated argument is a valid point of view,[cont]
nrgins 2 years ago
[Part 3]
even if one does not cite studies that explicitly prove the converse. If you tell me that it costs more money to build a bridge than a tunnel; and I cite flaws in your studies; that, in and of itself, is a valid argument, even if I don't have studies that show it costs more to build a tunnel than a bridge.
In any case, it seems to me that a lot of these arguments are subjective - how much are we estimating that this would cost vs. what that would cost - and I'm not sure there [cont]
nrgins 2 years ago
[part 4]
would be an argument that would satisfy those who hold to the statistics cited in those studies. I agree with the site I shared with you, that much of this data is misrepresented and distorted; but, without delving into the studies in detail and picking through them piece by piece, I doubt you and I will be satisfied with either's POV. Hence, it might be best to leave it at that, that there are arguments for both positions, and move on.
nrgins 2 years ago
Yes, I think the best we are going to do is agree to disagree.
bikenik 2 years ago
So you agree it's best to agree that we disagree? I mean, I'd hate to beat this to death; there would be penalty in that... (OK, that doesn't even qualify as a "bad pun"... Sorry.... :-( )
BTW, I notice you got a +1 on your "agree to disagree" post. Apparently someone out there is tired of our discussion..... :-/
nrgins 2 years ago
My comment has nothing 2 do with ur tangent about due process and/or the Constitution.
Why do criminals have no problem w/ going back 2 jail when they R released? It's because they R not afraid of it.
The phrase "rot in jail" doesn't apply n the US. Criminals actually thrive. Why is the sentiment "U wouldn't want 2 go 2 a Turkish/Chinese Prison etc."
Y isn't that the reputation of jail here n the USA. Some argue,what about innocent..true..but I've never come close 2 going to jail...have U?
TheyROutThere 2 years ago
Rewarding criminals with a four stars hotel,disfunctional minds should be punish accordingly, a functional productive mind should be protected,
Your idealist vision toward criminals makes the world a dangerous place for the average functional citizens who works and obeys the law, normal people like you and me, we've been too rational about crimimals who been in the prison system for decades, if they know the consequences why is it they don't obey the law? Death penalty an evil necessity
robertdjwizard 2 years ago
"An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind" Bapuji
HabsRule92Remy92 2 years ago
The logic of the death penalty is as beautiful as the religion which created it. In order to keep people from killing people, we kill the people who have killed people, and this will keep the people who kill people from killing people. Now let's move on to Noah's ark.
2of6Solutions 2 years ago 3
Exactly, could not have summed it up better myself. Nicely put.
WashingMachine0 2 years ago