Pretty sad that money is more important than justice..death penalty is not about determent..it's about justice and closure...the only reason why I can think someone would be anti-death penalty is so they can abolish it and go on a murder spree and get a cushy sentence like Anders Breviek...
@ubermisogynist Oops... I thumbed up your comment before I read 1) the whole thing 2) your username. I agree that it is perverse to argue against the death penalty on the basis of cost, but I still believe it is wrong to execute.
@papalosopher I think the death penalty helps the rule of law and limits vigilantism..get rid of the death penalty and people will exact justice on their own..in that scenario innocents WILL die..at least with death penalty it takes reasonable doubt, appeals etc
@ubermisogynist It is difficult for a person to exact vigilante justice against someone locked away for life. I suppose if you had mob connections... Rule of law is good, vigilantism bad, but people exact vigilante justice against those who offend them for non-capital crimes. My neighbour's dog won't stop barking so I poison his dog: Well, to stop that vigilante action, I guess they should have executed the master? Executing prisoners is not the solution to vigilantism.
What they won't tell you is that in when the convicted murderer is sick, old and dying behind bars they will say "it's a waste of money to keep him in here, he's just an old man, we should let him out"
It's what was done in Scotland with the Pan-Am terrorist, and that's what they are doing in Illinois now.
Capital punishment may be more expensive, but it means no shithead getting out of jail when everybody who remembers the victim is dead.
llinois has just abolished the Death Penalty this week and in CA one of our StateSenators has written legislation that will hopefully bring about the abolishment of the Death Penalty here. There is no reason for it to exist, and multiple sound reasons for it to be abolished in every state. If that takes a Federal mandate, so be it.
This would be great. But the video was ruined by mixing liberal policies with the important goal of death penalty abolition. What does MORE education and health care spending have to do with this? (Obviously, special interest groups want to blow up the already bloated education and health budgets) And school lunches? Nonsense. Feeding grandma? What?
We should just bring back the firing line. Bullets don't cost that much. Shit, a pack of 9mms is about 12.99 for 50 rounds. That is fifty people we could rid the world of if we just sit them on their knees and pop one in the back of their head. Quick, painless and cheap. Stop keeping these people on death row for 20 years. No more endless appeals. They are killing the first woman in Va since 1912 this week. Good for them for not backing down!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@jimmypubeface23 In fact, on the death certificates of those who are murdered by the State, the cause of death is listed as "Homicide". I totally agree with your well written statement.
If the country is paying more to kill someone than to incarcerate (constituting; guarding, feeding, sheltering, providing entertainment for, providing health for, etc) for 25 years, then the country is seriously doing something wrong.
Not only does the death penalty need to be cut, but the whole justice system needs to be looked at. Because it is profitable for some like the guards, like the private prison system, prisoners are NOT rehabilitated they become better criminals. From what I've read, some of the guards, and I'm sure there are some good ones, are very abusive and should be the ones behind the bars.
Sure, makes sense if U can save $ then skip the death penalty. I could care less if they kill the bastards but we are in a recession so don't waist $. If we can't reform the death penalty so that it pays for itself, then we should abandon the practice. I really believe these crimes will occur at the same rate for death as they will for life in prison.
Yes ! We can save a BILLION DOLLARS in 5 years and use that money for services for crime victims and the elderly, solving cold cases, more policing, California's colleges, better public safety. CUT THE DEATH PENALTY ! It's an empty promise.
Capital Punishment is itself a premeditated murder. This is unacceptable even it is inflicted by state authority as it lowers the value of life. In fact, such act can only brutalize the society. "Revenge is essential" can become a society attitude. By witnessing such acts, our own mental makeup starts believing that violence is necessary to curb the wrongdoings.
@Nate2203 Fortunately there is. Thats why it is banned in Europe. You obviously don;t understand. Someone has killed someone. Government kills that person. How is that not the government being reduced to their level?
@JonnyPxN No, there isn't room for emotion in the courtroom, only fact and law. The government is not reduced to their level because the government isn't going around killing random people, they are executing people who know that they will be executed for their actions before they commit them.
@Nate2203 Your arguement is not making sense. In america not every person is killed for killing someone. You are basically saying, they know the consequences, so no matter what the consequence, if thy do something wrong they HAVE to take the consequence. Like I said earlier, its like saying if you steal you will have your eyes put out. Bit unfair? No, accoridng to your logic, the man knew the conseqnces, doesnt matter how inumane the punishment is, its law.
@JonnyPxN No, I already told you: life for life, liberty for liberty, property for property. Taking out an eye for stealing is not just. You keep circling around to this and it is not at all what I am saying.
@Nate2203 Furthermore, emotion is allowed into the court. How do you think that people get reduced sentences if they plea or admit their guilt? Or the point of the barristor to actually PERSAUDE the judge his defendent is innocent, that takes emotion as well as facts. Ill say it once more, killing a murderer is wrong. You are basically on their level. No one has the RIGHT to kill someone else. So if someone is murdered, that murderer will spend his life behind bars.
@JonnyPxN You do not need emotion for any of the courtroom issues you discussed and the rest of your post was totally opinion. You are right about one thing, no ONE has the right to kill someone else. When death is merely a consequence of murder, the murderer himself is his own killer.
@Nate2203 Just because the state says it can kill someone doesnt mean they have the right. Thats why the EU has the death penalty aboloshed 50 years ago. * The death penalty goes against our most basic human right - the right to life * Being killed by lethal injection or being electrocuted is not always smooth and painless, sometimes it causes a painful death
@Nate2203 No-one has ever proven with numbers that killing murderers stops other people committing similar crimes Mistakes are sometimes made in the law - what if someone is killed who is actually innocent?
I cba to argue with you anymore, you have already shown your true colours by calling me personally scared and you just cant argue. Anyways, arguing over youtube is sad, so im going to stop. Have fun understanding future arguements.
Cutting the death penalty won't do any good. This ad is very clever. It tricks the viewer into thinking it would save money. In order to indefinitely house those who would otherwise be sentenced to death would require more prisons. Prisons are over populated. This also means more basic necessities for these prisoners. Why not campaign to decriminalize drugs. Drugs charges are the number one cause of prison overpopulation. This would redirect officers to crimes like murder.
@TurboInsomniac well the good news is that saving about 200 million dollars a year would probably compensate
do you realize how many people actually go in death row? and even on death row, how many years people actually spend in prison before they die? do you know how many prisons there are already built that house those on death row?
@Nate2203 But surely that can be applied to any situation? You could say, if you steal then we can torture you and whip you. You did it, so we can do it. It's not a good basis for an arguement. Lets just leave it at that.
@Nate2203 No, because a life for a life is like saying an eye for an eye. If that happened then the entire world would be blind. I just feel that by killing someone who has killed someone else, you are as bad as them. My country agrees with me, they aboloshed it almost 50 years ago.
@JonnyPxN The eye for an eye makes the whole world blind thing is only true for individuals taking punishment into their own hands, not a society enforcing it's rules.
@Nate2203 Yes, but it still applies. Again, I think that by killing someone, you are saying the government can do what this person did and kill them, but it demeans them to their level. Let them rot in prison for 50 years, that is punishment.
@JonnyPxN It does not still apply. Obviously if you took out someone's eye, then someone would take out yours, then someone theirs, and so on. That is what Gandhi was talking about. Are you just that scared of executing a person that you would rather just let them rot in prison, out of your sight and mind then you don't have to feel bad about it because they're still alive? That's all your doing.
@Nate2203 I would rather they were alive and treated ok, than kill them and so use their crime as a reason for killing them. I'd rather say they are still alive and having to deal with their consequences of a large period of time than have the memory haunt me that i am as bad as this person if i kill him/her. I like how you introduce me personally and that i am just "scared". I'm thinking of my opinion and human rights here.. if you dont agree with me, why are you commenting on this video?
@JonnyPxN It is your personal opinion, you have your personal reasons, why should you not personally be introduced into it?
" if you dont agree with me, why are you commenting on this video?"
That's just stupid. I could say: If you aren't from this country, why are you commenting on this video that has nothing to do with any sort of policy in your country?
All your argument is based in is emotional plea, that's all. You FEEL better about yourself because the guy is in jail and not dead.
@Nate2203 No, you don't get it. You introduced me as being scared. Why would I personally be scared? Doesn;t make sense. And i am basing my arguenemtn on the fact that everyone has the right to life. UN charter. Thats why no EU country has the death penalty. Its wrong, its inhumane, its stupid.
@LogicalFlawDetector How would that help anything? Welfare is already so low as to be useless. The majority of murderers aren't on welfare to begin with.
Wow! The liberals are talking about fiscal responsibility. What about the KSM trials in New York, morons? The costs of the Health Care bill? The Afghan War? Your Welfare programs?
@LogicalFlawDetector Why wouldn't you put KSM on trial? What do you want, summary executions with no legal oversight at all? That idea was tossed out centuries ago in civilized societies. Your Health care bill is an abomination, but it's not socialism, if O was a socialist, he'd have removed the age requirement from Medicare. The Afghan war was started by Bush the lesser, a man who didn't pay attention to what happened when the soviets invaded that nation.
1) If you were falsely convicted of a crime and almost faced the death penalty, it is not a problem with the death penalty. The problem lies with the justice system. With advances in DNA technology and forensic science, many of the falsely convicted are being exonerated. Perhaps the death penalty should be given only to people convicted with irrefutable DNA evidence? Would that be fine?
2) And this video doesn't say how exactly the death penalty costs tax payers more. Just assertions.
If enough of them are carried out quickly,and not set for 10,20 years on death row. And by the way,it is not murder to put some to death for killing anyone.Iam not talking about accidents. I would not feel bad about doing it.
The death penalty is primitive and irrational. Eye for an eye doesn't accomplish anything. It's all about revenge. Two of my uncles were murdered and I still don't agree with the death penalty.
@nilbud It's not murder, it's a consequence. Tell us all why a murderer deserves to live?!?!?! Why must we allow one that has killed another human being purposefully to live?!?!
People also have the right to liberty, so we cannot throw them in jail either.
"2) "
Confinement in prison is also cruel and inhumane.
"3)"
No scientific study has been conducted on an actual working model of the death penalty, so the findings of any study conducted thus far would be irrelevant.
@Nate2203 1) you totally misunderstood that, people have the right to liberty e.g. no degradation in prison, not they can go on a rampage with no consequences...
2) Confinement in prison is not inhumane and cruel, the prisoners in the US are beaten, theyre given free time and meals. Killing someone is inhumane.
3) Yes it has, where do you think they got their facts from? It can't be a model...
@JonnyPxN Putting someone to death after they have murdered another is justice. How is it not?
A model of the death penalty would be the one we have right now, but it doesn't work. It is severely broken. Of course it won't deter when it is given out inconsistantly and takes forever to actually get you executed.
How is confining someone to prison not taking away their liberty?
@Nate2203 It's not justice because you are killing someone who has the right to live. You are reducing yourself to their level by using their crime as punishment. Yes it is taking away part of their liberty, BUT they have done something wrong and yet still they are not tortured, starved etc etc, they are treated with some decency. Killing them is the worst way of deflecting liberty.
It is not murder, it is a consequence, a punishment, a deterrant.
"6"
It is not about bringing peace to the victims, and you cannot back up any claims about social stability. The death penalty is NOT about avenging the victim, it is solely about the government protecting the rights of the people. When one of the people they are supposed to protect violates anothers rights, that person forfeits the right that they have violated.
@Nate2203 It is murder, I just showed you below that the death penalty has not been proven to be a deterrant, and it is murder, how will the state show that murder is wrong if they murder the person who commiteed the crime, bit confusing? And your last paragraph is just rubbish, people still have rights whn they go to prison, thats why tehyre not beaten or starved. If they are they can sue the state.
@TheSaturnalia Hey, you implied that it was less bad to kill someone when they were robbing a store than if they were a malicious murderer, go read your damn post. Murder is murder. I would guess, but I have no idea what kind of #'s we're talking about here ;-) Of course no murderer is deterred by prison, if they had it in their brain that they were gonna get the death penalty they would think twice as long about it. Besides, there is no reason to keep a murderer alive in prison for life.
@Nate2203 I made no such implication. I stated where most murders happen, during other crimes like robbery (if it's a crime, it's not ok) or a crime of passion or opportunity. Note, I said Crime. How many people are in jail for life in CA due to their 3 strikes law? Don't you think they'd have been deterred from committing another crime, especially as they had been in jail twice before? DYOR google 'hanging pickpockets' you'll find some interesting research that debunks your get tough idea.
@TheSaturnalia I'm sorry, you're right, it just can be interpreted that you did in fact make the implication when you were really just saying that it wouldn't deter people because it would be a crime of passion, in the moment and they wouldn't be thinking about it. And to that I say, so what? It's like you people think that locking men up for life is somehow a better, more civil, alternative. It's not, you're stripping a man of his freedom just so he can rot in prison, yeah, so much better.
@Nate2203 Executing a murderer lets them get away with the crime, IMO. Once they're dead, they're dead. You're quite right I think that having a man in prison for life does strip him of his freedom. It is humiliating, it is a punishment. The best way to punish someone for taking a life is to take theirs, but not to kill them. Killing them reduces society to their level. T'is better to lock them up in a cage and let them know they will be held accountable in this life for the life they took.
@Nate2203 The only people who are deterred by harsh sentences are those who wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. The only way to reduce the cost of executing convicts would be to take them from the courthouse to the gallows, and disallow any appeal of their sentence.
@TheSaturnalia " The only way to reduce the cost of executing convicts would be to take them from the courthouse to the gallows, and disallow any appeal of their sentence."
That is not "the only way to reduce the cost of executing convicts", that's the extreme view of reducing the cost. Yes, we would have to expediate the executions and cut down on attorney fees, but at the same time we would also want to cut down on innocents being executed, like to zero.
@ender842 reform means to re form. Re form the policy aka change the policy. To reform the policy of the death penalty to cut down on the innocents getting executed, obviously you can't un-execute someone. The death penalty does not deter because it is not used consistently enough, and not widely enough. It needs to be used in every murder where there is DNA evidence. We need to deter one-time murderers, the serial freaks will not be deterred, they already know that they will get death.
@Nate2203 Oh cool thank you for educating me on the term reform, now put your big boy thinking cap on and tell me how its done. Its easy to say lets reform. DNA evidence is used, one-time murderers do it in the heat of the moment and do not think of the ramifications of their actions. Please elaborate on actual reform.
@ender842 I cannot say what the actual reform would be, brainstorming up ideas off the top of my head I would say to start with the problem of executing innocents and require that EVERY case involving capital punishment has sufficient DNA evidence, they don't require it now. Place time limits on appeals. Widen the scope to anyone who has commited murder while making it harder for the death penalty to be given as a sentence.
We cannot tolerate murder just because it was in the moment.
@Nate2203 Until someone comes up with a foolproof way of sentencing people to the death penalty with 100% certainty they committed the crime the death penalty is not an option, I don't think you would like it so much if they put you on death row, limit your Constitutional right to appeals, for a crime you did not commit. Murder is terrible, when you use the death penalty you are just stooping to a barbaric level. Lock them up and throw away the key, its that simple.
$32,195,000 a year to keep people on death row...... thats 695 years of regular jail at todays prices... keep them in jail for ever with the option of suicide, if they kill themselves we save money if they dont it's still cheaper than execution
This is so stupid, so because we do something inefficiently, let's get rid of it??? Seriously, it's called REFORM people. Just because it costs a crapload today to execute someone, doesn't mean that it has to! Keeping these people locked up for the rest of their lives might keep them away from us, but it does no good, and does not justly punish the murderer.
I think we actually need more of the death penalty, if it were given more, there would be less murder(and murderers). We can reform the system, it doesn't have to cost so much, and it would only be given in cases where there is overwhelming evidence(DNA would be a repuirement). In a society where one of the three basic rights is the right to life, a person who infringes on anothers right to life in turn forfeits their own right to life.
@Nate2203 With all due respect sir, how does killing more people solve anything?
Gang members see there friends, family and love ones get killed all the time and it does not stop them from seeking revenge or committing the same crimes. death+death=more death. We have to draw the line somewhere. And buy the way its hard to reform anything when the state is billions of dollars in debt. That why its better to cut it rather than spend money WE DONT HAVE reforming it
@deathdealer13cat So if you can't reform it, how can you even cut it? That is a stupid excuse. It would be policy reform, which would come in the form of legislation, just like getting rid of the death penalty would be. It's not just killing people, it's giving and maintaining a consistant and fair punishment for a crime. It's about protecting citizens. The government is there to protect our rights, which include life, liberty, and property.
@Nate2203 U can protect the citizens just fine by putting a man in jail for the rest of his life without the possibility of parole. And by the way you cant compare policy reform to the death penalty. We need police, they are essential to are way of life. The death penalty is not.
@deathdealer13cat " you cant compare policy reform to the death penalty"
Umm, the actions taken by the state from sentancing, appealing, and actually carrying out the execution would be the capital punishment policy of that state, changing laws that would change those actions(the policy) would be policy reform.
You said about a "consistent and fair punishment". I don't know if I grant you that there may be cases where the death penalty may be just. But I do know that you go on to contradict yourself when you say it is about protecting the citizens. I tend to agree with the latter.
Either way, I don't see how utilizing the death penalty protects those rights. In actuality life without parole is a death sentence as well. The only difference is the state doesn't actively kill them.
@insidetrip101 No, the state actively takes their right to liberty. If everyone knows the rule, "you kill, you will be killed", I don't see anything wrong with it. Yes, it is uncomfortable thinking that the government kills people, the very people they are trying to protect. But it should be done. How is it not just, if the law is known by all, for our society to say that if you take a life, yours will be taken also?
"If everyone knows the rule, "you kill, you will be killed""
Not sure I see that in any legally binding document.... Then again, if I'm wrong feel free to point me in the right direction. Then again, if it were we would have to redefine self defense, and legally insane, pleas as well...
You are just wrong here. You want to kill the convicted but you ARE doing that when you give them life without parole. The only difference is that one sentence takes a little more long.
What's more, is that living out 50 years in captivity (at least I would think) is MUCH more punishment than just having them live out 15 years in captivity. You have to realize, both sentences end in death. I don't understand why it is important for you to actually inject lethal injection in them to die. Why can't you just throw them in a cell to rot? What is the difference? There really isn't any.
I would like to see how you would do that. If you are proposing that we go back to firing squads then I wish you luck in actually convincing people to do that sort of thing.
Or you could just move to Saudi Arabia... Seriously, what you are proposing is something practiced in third world countries.
@insidetrip101 A guy just got executed by firing squad in Utah. It might be more violent in nature, but it would be over sooner and be less painful than injection can be.
I don't agree with you and don't even see any point in arguing against your point. I would entertain you if you could actually gain a large majority of people who agreed with you.
Remember, in a lot of states the chair is illegal. You really think you are going to get people to go along with firing squad? lol
@insidetrip101 The chair is a million times less humane than a firing squad. It is pretty much torture and it can take more than one try to actually kill the person. The so called "humane" choices are only percieved as such because there is no blood or violent action involved. The firing squad is just as humane(if not more) as any other choice.
@insidetrip101 Lol, so you are willing to torture someone so it's less personal? hahaha, nice. How humane of you!
The guy in Utah CHOSE the firing squad as the way for him to be executed. The chair should be outlawed everywhere, it literally cooks people while they are still alive. It's actually a really stupid way to execute people when you think about it.
Quoting myself here: "You act like that has nothing to do with people's choices as well." Grats on completely misquoting me. I wouldn't kill, period.
I never once said I was willing to torture someone. I said personality affects people's opinions on the matter. SOMEONE has to "press the button" to kill someone. Not everyone is as eager to kill someone as you are. Not everyone wants to advertise that they have killed others. There are people who seek revenge for that sort of thing...
@Nate2203 In a way letting a man rot in prison is far less humane than killing them. They get to spend the rest of there lives: reflecting on what they did, living liking a animal, constantly watching there back in fear of of other inmates, not knowing whether or not they want to beat up/rape/kill u. Death is a very sweet release compared to what some of the inmates have to go through on a day-to-day.
@deathdealer13cat EXACTLY, the punishment is still supposed to be HUMANE. I'm not looking to torture these people, just get it over with. They thought it was ok to take someone's life, so theirs will be taken from them. I do not rejoice in the deaths of murderers, in fact I find it sad, but we cannot go soft on people because we are sad.
@Nate2203 You want to kill people to show people that killing people is wrong? Too many people who can't afford good lawyers get railroaded into jail for crimes they didn't commit. Even DNA evidence can be falsified if the prosecutor leans heavily enough on the lab workers. The vast majority of murders happen as crimes of passion or as a result of committing another crime like armed robbery. Very few murderers are the mass murderer type of scum.
What everyone really needs to ask themselves is this: Does having a death penalty really prevent any potential crimes from being committed in the future? What good is killing a man if it does not set a precedent to future criminals.
@fr1edweezy Great point! It seems to me that the best way to prevent murder is to solve murder and thru violence prevention programs. A society that cared about creating safe and welcoming communities would fund these things, NOT a dysfunctional death penalty.
@aclunc well how about this kill them because they are scum and deserve it that way they dont get three meals a day...housing.cable tv...a job which are some things non-criminals cant even get...how is that fai that i pay for them murderes rapists and the like to get all these things when my neigbor cant it isnt far you are a tree hugging pussy and i hope you get shot i bet you will want the person dead
@fr1edweezy well how about this kill them because they are scum and deserve it that way they dont get three meals a day...housing.cable tv...a job which are some things non-criminals cant even get...how is that fai that i pay for them murderes rapists and the like to get all these things when my neigbor cant it isnt far you are a tree hugging pussy and i hope you get shot i bet you will want the person dead
It's a tough issue, for sure. There are some incredibly evil people on this planet who have reneged on thier membership to the human race, and I wouldn't miss them at all. However, a civilized society must prove itself to be of greater morality than those who trangress it's laws.
Good vid, you covered most of the bases. The one thing that you didn't mention is that even if you do kill the one who's guilty of the crime (usually a few decades after the guy is in jail) there is no way to know that they are actually being punished. No one knows what happens after death. What we do know is that the greatest fear of any convict is to die in jail alone in their cell, decades after the rest of the world has forgotten about them.
@hollaboutit We might not treat dogs like that, but we do treat some other animals like that. For proof see to your local zoo. The humane aspect of life imprisonment is that you can fix it if you've convicted the wrong person of the crime. If you've put someone to death for something, you can't unkill him if you find that there was someone else who was responsible for the crime. Then there is the aspect of making sure the guilty are punished. I've seen no evidence for hell or heaven.
@TheSaturnalia do you know what the murder recidivism rate is? i call it off the tp of my head, but its EXTREMELY low. you want to talk about learning your lesson, i'm game. but, if not, i'd rather be dead.
@hollaboutit Very low indeed, in fact most trustees in prison are murderers (last I heard, could be wrong), most people who murder do it once. I'm not sure if people actually do learn anything in prison, they might learn how to commit crimes that have a lower chance of getting caught... I think executing people is just a way for them to get out of jail without much punishment.
May I ask how the death penalty is more expensive then life in prison? If the answer is "its not" like I think it is, then what do you plan to do with deathrow inmates if your taking the money from the death penalty and putting it in schools and the police force.
@achilles6822 wrote: "May I ask how the death penalty is more expensive then life in prison?"
The answer is at aclunc(.)org/cutthis
Don't forget to take the parentheses out of that address when pasting it into your browser
On that page you'll find details explaining how cutting the death penalty "would save $1 billion in five years without releasing a single prisoner or jeopardizing public safety."
Great video! I like the way you gathered such an ideologically diverse group and had them all match the same message about the unnecessary cost of the death penalty.
While saying that the death penalty should be cut due to saving resources is a valid point, surely a more valid one is that no one should have the right to kill another human being? UN Charter- Article 3
" Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
Surely if you kill this murderer, you are as bad as they are? Isn't that a more convincing arguement than economic reasons?
@JonnyPxN For people who are actually civilized, yes. You're quite right about it being a more convincing argument. But the usa is a nation that practices preemptive war, the government does torture people (and is not at all apologetic about it, nor is it willing to prosecute those who committed those crimes), it is a nation that thinks public health care is morally wrong.
Pretty sad that money is more important than justice..death penalty is not about determent..it's about justice and closure...the only reason why I can think someone would be anti-death penalty is so they can abolish it and go on a murder spree and get a cushy sentence like Anders Breviek...
ubermisogynist 6 months ago
@ubermisogynist Oops... I thumbed up your comment before I read 1) the whole thing 2) your username. I agree that it is perverse to argue against the death penalty on the basis of cost, but I still believe it is wrong to execute.
papalosopher 5 months ago
@papalosopher I think the death penalty helps the rule of law and limits vigilantism..get rid of the death penalty and people will exact justice on their own..in that scenario innocents WILL die..at least with death penalty it takes reasonable doubt, appeals etc
ubermisogynist 5 months ago
@ubermisogynist It is difficult for a person to exact vigilante justice against someone locked away for life. I suppose if you had mob connections... Rule of law is good, vigilantism bad, but people exact vigilante justice against those who offend them for non-capital crimes. My neighbour's dog won't stop barking so I poison his dog: Well, to stop that vigilante action, I guess they should have executed the master? Executing prisoners is not the solution to vigilantism.
papalosopher 5 months ago
What they won't tell you is that in when the convicted murderer is sick, old and dying behind bars they will say "it's a waste of money to keep him in here, he's just an old man, we should let him out"
It's what was done in Scotland with the Pan-Am terrorist, and that's what they are doing in Illinois now.
Capital punishment may be more expensive, but it means no shithead getting out of jail when everybody who remembers the victim is dead.
atfreema 6 months ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 8 months ago
llinois has just abolished the Death Penalty this week and in CA one of our StateSenators has written legislation that will hopefully bring about the abolishment of the Death Penalty here. There is no reason for it to exist, and multiple sound reasons for it to be abolished in every state. If that takes a Federal mandate, so be it.
LifterwiII 8 months ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 8 months ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 8 months ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 8 months ago
This would be great. But the video was ruined by mixing liberal policies with the important goal of death penalty abolition. What does MORE education and health care spending have to do with this? (Obviously, special interest groups want to blow up the already bloated education and health budgets) And school lunches? Nonsense. Feeding grandma? What?
rodrigsa1 10 months ago
conservatives claim to want small govt, but yet they want the govt to have the power to kill you.
the govt could frame you and have you killed.
the death penalty is opposite to western values
matchbox555 1 year ago
We should just bring back the firing line. Bullets don't cost that much. Shit, a pack of 9mms is about 12.99 for 50 rounds. That is fifty people we could rid the world of if we just sit them on their knees and pop one in the back of their head. Quick, painless and cheap. Stop keeping these people on death row for 20 years. No more endless appeals. They are killing the first woman in Va since 1912 this week. Good for them for not backing down!
Jazepentz 1 year ago
death penalty is murder, i hope every executioner knows that, its got nothing to do with justice only revenge
jimmypubeface23 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@jimmypubeface23 In fact, on the death certificates of those who are murdered by the State, the cause of death is listed as "Homicide". I totally agree with your well written statement.
LifterwiII 8 months ago
If the country is paying more to kill someone than to incarcerate (constituting; guarding, feeding, sheltering, providing entertainment for, providing health for, etc) for 25 years, then the country is seriously doing something wrong.
simpledvorak 1 year ago
Its not more costly if you just chop his head off. The problem is the way we kill people is too costly. A good sharp katana would do the trick.
AkumaDaimyo 1 year ago
Life without parole is the safely fair thing as well as economic.
topchoices 1 year ago
Not only does the death penalty need to be cut, but the whole justice system needs to be looked at. Because it is profitable for some like the guards, like the private prison system, prisoners are NOT rehabilitated they become better criminals. From what I've read, some of the guards, and I'm sure there are some good ones, are very abusive and should be the ones behind the bars.
betterpresident09 1 year ago 6
Sure, makes sense if U can save $ then skip the death penalty. I could care less if they kill the bastards but we are in a recession so don't waist $. If we can't reform the death penalty so that it pays for itself, then we should abandon the practice. I really believe these crimes will occur at the same rate for death as they will for life in prison.
ohsnap31 1 year ago
Yes ! We can save a BILLION DOLLARS in 5 years and use that money for services for crime victims and the elderly, solving cold cases, more policing, California's colleges, better public safety. CUT THE DEATH PENALTY ! It's an empty promise.
ElizabethZitrin 1 year ago 11
@ElizabethZitrin I don't see the emptiness of the promise... it sounds like the money is going to go to great things...
papalosopher 5 months ago
@ElizabethZitrin why do you care more about money than justice?
ubermisogynist 5 months ago
@Nate2203 haha yeah u mad u maad. im done arguing its like talking to a wall.
ender842 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ender842 lol, I'm not mad.
You're done arguing because you can't answer my questions.
Nate2203 1 year ago
death sentence is more humane then a life sentence with 23 hour a day lockdown.
Scalpking47 1 year ago
Capital Punishment is itself a premeditated murder. This is unacceptable even it is inflicted by state authority as it lowers the value of life. In fact, such act can only brutalize the society. "Revenge is essential" can become a society attitude. By witnessing such acts, our own mental makeup starts believing that violence is necessary to curb the wrongdoings.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@Nate2203 Fortunately there is. Thats why it is banned in Europe. You obviously don;t understand. Someone has killed someone. Government kills that person. How is that not the government being reduced to their level?
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN No, there isn't room for emotion in the courtroom, only fact and law. The government is not reduced to their level because the government isn't going around killing random people, they are executing people who know that they will be executed for their actions before they commit them.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 Your arguement is not making sense. In america not every person is killed for killing someone. You are basically saying, they know the consequences, so no matter what the consequence, if thy do something wrong they HAVE to take the consequence. Like I said earlier, its like saying if you steal you will have your eyes put out. Bit unfair? No, accoridng to your logic, the man knew the conseqnces, doesnt matter how inumane the punishment is, its law.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN No, I already told you: life for life, liberty for liberty, property for property. Taking out an eye for stealing is not just. You keep circling around to this and it is not at all what I am saying.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 Furthermore, emotion is allowed into the court. How do you think that people get reduced sentences if they plea or admit their guilt? Or the point of the barristor to actually PERSAUDE the judge his defendent is innocent, that takes emotion as well as facts. Ill say it once more, killing a murderer is wrong. You are basically on their level. No one has the RIGHT to kill someone else. So if someone is murdered, that murderer will spend his life behind bars.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN You do not need emotion for any of the courtroom issues you discussed and the rest of your post was totally opinion. You are right about one thing, no ONE has the right to kill someone else. When death is merely a consequence of murder, the murderer himself is his own killer.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 Just because the state says it can kill someone doesnt mean they have the right. Thats why the EU has the death penalty aboloshed 50 years ago. * The death penalty goes against our most basic human right - the right to life * Being killed by lethal injection or being electrocuted is not always smooth and painless, sometimes it causes a painful death
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@Nate2203 No-one has ever proven with numbers that killing murderers stops other people committing similar crimes Mistakes are sometimes made in the law - what if someone is killed who is actually innocent?
I cba to argue with you anymore, you have already shown your true colours by calling me personally scared and you just cant argue. Anyways, arguing over youtube is sad, so im going to stop. Have fun understanding future arguements.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
Cut out Prohibition while you're at it.
PiratedComedy 1 year ago
Cutting the death penalty won't do any good. This ad is very clever. It tricks the viewer into thinking it would save money. In order to indefinitely house those who would otherwise be sentenced to death would require more prisons. Prisons are over populated. This also means more basic necessities for these prisoners. Why not campaign to decriminalize drugs. Drugs charges are the number one cause of prison overpopulation. This would redirect officers to crimes like murder.
TurboInsomniac 1 year ago
@TurboInsomniac well the good news is that saving about 200 million dollars a year would probably compensate
do you realize how many people actually go in death row? and even on death row, how many years people actually spend in prison before they die? do you know how many prisons there are already built that house those on death row?
Blair63B 1 year ago
@Nate2203 But surely that can be applied to any situation? You could say, if you steal then we can torture you and whip you. You did it, so we can do it. It's not a good basis for an arguement. Lets just leave it at that.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN No, because that punishment would be unjust. Life for life, liberty for liberty, property for property.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 No, because a life for a life is like saying an eye for an eye. If that happened then the entire world would be blind. I just feel that by killing someone who has killed someone else, you are as bad as them. My country agrees with me, they aboloshed it almost 50 years ago.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN The eye for an eye makes the whole world blind thing is only true for individuals taking punishment into their own hands, not a society enforcing it's rules.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 Yes, but it still applies. Again, I think that by killing someone, you are saying the government can do what this person did and kill them, but it demeans them to their level. Let them rot in prison for 50 years, that is punishment.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN It does not still apply. Obviously if you took out someone's eye, then someone would take out yours, then someone theirs, and so on. That is what Gandhi was talking about. Are you just that scared of executing a person that you would rather just let them rot in prison, out of your sight and mind then you don't have to feel bad about it because they're still alive? That's all your doing.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 I would rather they were alive and treated ok, than kill them and so use their crime as a reason for killing them. I'd rather say they are still alive and having to deal with their consequences of a large period of time than have the memory haunt me that i am as bad as this person if i kill him/her. I like how you introduce me personally and that i am just "scared". I'm thinking of my opinion and human rights here.. if you dont agree with me, why are you commenting on this video?
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN It is your personal opinion, you have your personal reasons, why should you not personally be introduced into it?
" if you dont agree with me, why are you commenting on this video?"
That's just stupid. I could say: If you aren't from this country, why are you commenting on this video that has nothing to do with any sort of policy in your country?
All your argument is based in is emotional plea, that's all. You FEEL better about yourself because the guy is in jail and not dead.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 No, you don't get it. You introduced me as being scared. Why would I personally be scared? Doesn;t make sense. And i am basing my arguenemtn on the fact that everyone has the right to life. UN charter. Thats why no EU country has the death penalty. Its wrong, its inhumane, its stupid.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN What country is that?
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 UK in 1964 was the last death penalty enacted.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@LogicalFlawDetector How would that help anything? Welfare is already so low as to be useless. The majority of murderers aren't on welfare to begin with.
TheSaturnalia 1 year ago
Wow! The liberals are talking about fiscal responsibility. What about the KSM trials in New York, morons? The costs of the Health Care bill? The Afghan War? Your Welfare programs?
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
@LogicalFlawDetector Why wouldn't you put KSM on trial? What do you want, summary executions with no legal oversight at all? That idea was tossed out centuries ago in civilized societies. Your Health care bill is an abomination, but it's not socialism, if O was a socialist, he'd have removed the age requirement from Medicare. The Afghan war was started by Bush the lesser, a man who didn't pay attention to what happened when the soviets invaded that nation.
TheSaturnalia 1 year ago
Liberalviewer,
your ACLU link cracks me up.
$1 billion every five years? OMG! That's so much more ... than the Khalid Sheik Mohammed Trials, you liberals wanted in the City of New York.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
1) If you were falsely convicted of a crime and almost faced the death penalty, it is not a problem with the death penalty. The problem lies with the justice system. With advances in DNA technology and forensic science, many of the falsely convicted are being exonerated. Perhaps the death penalty should be given only to people convicted with irrefutable DNA evidence? Would that be fine?
2) And this video doesn't say how exactly the death penalty costs tax payers more. Just assertions.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
If enough of them are carried out quickly,and not set for 10,20 years on death row. And by the way,it is not murder to put some to death for killing anyone.Iam not talking about accidents. I would not feel bad about doing it.
cghgrn1 1 year ago
They only talk about money while there are way better points, you are talking about people lives and the only thing you think about is money? ;p
lnmylife 1 year ago
The death penalty is primitive and irrational. Eye for an eye doesn't accomplish anything. It's all about revenge. Two of my uncles were murdered and I still don't agree with the death penalty.
PunanyFingerz 1 year ago
@nilbud It's not murder, it's a consequence. Tell us all why a murderer deserves to live?!?!?! Why must we allow one that has killed another human being purposefully to live?!?!
Nate2203 1 year ago
I'll give you a list then:
1)The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises each person’s right to life. Therefore, the death penalty violates a persons right to life
2) The death penalty is a cruel and inhuman death.No one can guarantee a dignified and painless death.
3) No scientific study has proved that the death penalty has a more dissuasive effect on crime than other punishments.
4) It'sdiscriminatory in its application.
E.g.lt's disproportionately used against disadvantaged people
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"1)"
People also have the right to liberty, so we cannot throw them in jail either.
"2) "
Confinement in prison is also cruel and inhumane.
"3)"
No scientific study has been conducted on an actual working model of the death penalty, so the findings of any study conducted thus far would be irrelevant.
"4)"
Well, we can change that, can't we?
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 1) you totally misunderstood that, people have the right to liberty e.g. no degradation in prison, not they can go on a rampage with no consequences...
2) Confinement in prison is not inhumane and cruel, the prisoners in the US are beaten, theyre given free time and meals. Killing someone is inhumane.
3) Yes it has, where do you think they got their facts from? It can't be a model...
4) So you admitt it is?
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN Putting someone to death after they have murdered another is justice. How is it not?
A model of the death penalty would be the one we have right now, but it doesn't work. It is severely broken. Of course it won't deter when it is given out inconsistantly and takes forever to actually get you executed.
How is confining someone to prison not taking away their liberty?
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 It's not justice because you are killing someone who has the right to live. You are reducing yourself to their level by using their crime as punishment. Yes it is taking away part of their liberty, BUT they have done something wrong and yet still they are not tortured, starved etc etc, they are treated with some decency. Killing them is the worst way of deflecting liberty.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
Comment removed
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
Since you removed this-
"@JonnyPxN @Nate2203 5) 4 - the death penalty is premeditated murder, demeans the state and makes society more violent.
By executing a person, the state commits a murder and shows the same readiness to use physical violence against its victim as the criminal.
6) the death penalty cannot provide social stability nor bring peace to the victims.
An execution cannot give the victim his or her life back nor ease the suffering felt by their family
etc etc etc et al"
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 I don't know how that got removed.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN I suppose I assumed it was you, sorry about that. What I meant to say was "since this was removed" :-)
Nate2203 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"5"
It is not murder, it is a consequence, a punishment, a deterrant.
"6"
It is not about bringing peace to the victims, and you cannot back up any claims about social stability. The death penalty is NOT about avenging the victim, it is solely about the government protecting the rights of the people. When one of the people they are supposed to protect violates anothers rights, that person forfeits the right that they have violated.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 It is murder, I just showed you below that the death penalty has not been proven to be a deterrant, and it is murder, how will the state show that murder is wrong if they murder the person who commiteed the crime, bit confusing? And your last paragraph is just rubbish, people still have rights whn they go to prison, thats why tehyre not beaten or starved. If they are they can sue the state.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
How will the state stop murder by committing murder? Well, how will the state stop a criminal life on the streets by a life in prison?
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
@LogicalFlawDetector Think for yourself.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@Nate2203 5) - the death penalty is premeditated murder, demeans the state and makes society more violent.
By executing a person, the state commits a murder and shows the same readiness to use physical violence against its victim as the criminal.
6) the death penalty cannot provide social stability nor bring peace to the victims.
An execution cannot give the victim his or her life back nor ease the suffering felt by their family
etc etc etc et al
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
Why don't we just expedite the death penalty and drag them behind an alley and shoot them?
ErikBarmon 1 year ago
@TheSaturnalia Hey, you implied that it was less bad to kill someone when they were robbing a store than if they were a malicious murderer, go read your damn post. Murder is murder. I would guess, but I have no idea what kind of #'s we're talking about here ;-) Of course no murderer is deterred by prison, if they had it in their brain that they were gonna get the death penalty they would think twice as long about it. Besides, there is no reason to keep a murderer alive in prison for life.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 I made no such implication. I stated where most murders happen, during other crimes like robbery (if it's a crime, it's not ok) or a crime of passion or opportunity. Note, I said Crime. How many people are in jail for life in CA due to their 3 strikes law? Don't you think they'd have been deterred from committing another crime, especially as they had been in jail twice before? DYOR google 'hanging pickpockets' you'll find some interesting research that debunks your get tough idea.
TheSaturnalia 1 year ago
@TheSaturnalia I'm sorry, you're right, it just can be interpreted that you did in fact make the implication when you were really just saying that it wouldn't deter people because it would be a crime of passion, in the moment and they wouldn't be thinking about it. And to that I say, so what? It's like you people think that locking men up for life is somehow a better, more civil, alternative. It's not, you're stripping a man of his freedom just so he can rot in prison, yeah, so much better.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 Executing a murderer lets them get away with the crime, IMO. Once they're dead, they're dead. You're quite right I think that having a man in prison for life does strip him of his freedom. It is humiliating, it is a punishment. The best way to punish someone for taking a life is to take theirs, but not to kill them. Killing them reduces society to their level. T'is better to lock them up in a cage and let them know they will be held accountable in this life for the life they took.
TheSaturnalia 1 year ago
@Nate2203 The only people who are deterred by harsh sentences are those who wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. The only way to reduce the cost of executing convicts would be to take them from the courthouse to the gallows, and disallow any appeal of their sentence.
TheSaturnalia 1 year ago
@TheSaturnalia " The only way to reduce the cost of executing convicts would be to take them from the courthouse to the gallows, and disallow any appeal of their sentence."
That is not "the only way to reduce the cost of executing convicts", that's the extreme view of reducing the cost. Yes, we would have to expediate the executions and cut down on attorney fees, but at the same time we would also want to cut down on innocents being executed, like to zero.
Nate2203 1 year ago
How could killing an innocent person be "reformed". The death penalty does not deter, it just doesn't.
ender842 1 year ago
@ender842 reform means to re form. Re form the policy aka change the policy. To reform the policy of the death penalty to cut down on the innocents getting executed, obviously you can't un-execute someone. The death penalty does not deter because it is not used consistently enough, and not widely enough. It needs to be used in every murder where there is DNA evidence. We need to deter one-time murderers, the serial freaks will not be deterred, they already know that they will get death.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 Oh cool thank you for educating me on the term reform, now put your big boy thinking cap on and tell me how its done. Its easy to say lets reform. DNA evidence is used, one-time murderers do it in the heat of the moment and do not think of the ramifications of their actions. Please elaborate on actual reform.
ender842 1 year ago
@ender842 I cannot say what the actual reform would be, brainstorming up ideas off the top of my head I would say to start with the problem of executing innocents and require that EVERY case involving capital punishment has sufficient DNA evidence, they don't require it now. Place time limits on appeals. Widen the scope to anyone who has commited murder while making it harder for the death penalty to be given as a sentence.
We cannot tolerate murder just because it was in the moment.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 Until someone comes up with a foolproof way of sentencing people to the death penalty with 100% certainty they committed the crime the death penalty is not an option, I don't think you would like it so much if they put you on death row, limit your Constitutional right to appeals, for a crime you did not commit. Murder is terrible, when you use the death penalty you are just stooping to a barbaric level. Lock them up and throw away the key, its that simple.
ender842 1 year ago
$32,195,000 a year to keep people on death row...... thats 695 years of regular jail at todays prices... keep them in jail for ever with the option of suicide, if they kill themselves we save money if they dont it's still cheaper than execution
nowhereusa 1 year ago
@nowhereusa or just figure out where those costs go and cut them.
Nate2203 1 year ago
This is so stupid, so because we do something inefficiently, let's get rid of it??? Seriously, it's called REFORM people. Just because it costs a crapload today to execute someone, doesn't mean that it has to! Keeping these people locked up for the rest of their lives might keep them away from us, but it does no good, and does not justly punish the murderer.
Nate2203 1 year ago
I think we actually need more of the death penalty, if it were given more, there would be less murder(and murderers). We can reform the system, it doesn't have to cost so much, and it would only be given in cases where there is overwhelming evidence(DNA would be a repuirement). In a society where one of the three basic rights is the right to life, a person who infringes on anothers right to life in turn forfeits their own right to life.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 With all due respect sir, how does killing more people solve anything?
Gang members see there friends, family and love ones get killed all the time and it does not stop them from seeking revenge or committing the same crimes. death+death=more death. We have to draw the line somewhere. And buy the way its hard to reform anything when the state is billions of dollars in debt. That why its better to cut it rather than spend money WE DONT HAVE reforming it
deathdealer13cat 1 year ago
@deathdealer13cat So if you can't reform it, how can you even cut it? That is a stupid excuse. It would be policy reform, which would come in the form of legislation, just like getting rid of the death penalty would be. It's not just killing people, it's giving and maintaining a consistant and fair punishment for a crime. It's about protecting citizens. The government is there to protect our rights, which include life, liberty, and property.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 U can protect the citizens just fine by putting a man in jail for the rest of his life without the possibility of parole. And by the way you cant compare policy reform to the death penalty. We need police, they are essential to are way of life. The death penalty is not.
deathdealer13cat 1 year ago
@deathdealer13cat " you cant compare policy reform to the death penalty"
Umm, the actions taken by the state from sentancing, appealing, and actually carrying out the execution would be the capital punishment policy of that state, changing laws that would change those actions(the policy) would be policy reform.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203
You said about a "consistent and fair punishment". I don't know if I grant you that there may be cases where the death penalty may be just. But I do know that you go on to contradict yourself when you say it is about protecting the citizens. I tend to agree with the latter.
Either way, I don't see how utilizing the death penalty protects those rights. In actuality life without parole is a death sentence as well. The only difference is the state doesn't actively kill them.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 No, the state actively takes their right to liberty. If everyone knows the rule, "you kill, you will be killed", I don't see anything wrong with it. Yes, it is uncomfortable thinking that the government kills people, the very people they are trying to protect. But it should be done. How is it not just, if the law is known by all, for our society to say that if you take a life, yours will be taken also?
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203
Hmmmmmm
"If everyone knows the rule, "you kill, you will be killed""
Not sure I see that in any legally binding document.... Then again, if I'm wrong feel free to point me in the right direction. Then again, if it were we would have to redefine self defense, and legally insane, pleas as well...
You are just wrong here. You want to kill the convicted but you ARE doing that when you give them life without parole. The only difference is that one sentence takes a little more long.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 It doesn't matter if it is in a legally binding contract right NOW, I'm saying it needs to CHANGE to be that way.
"You want to kill the convicted but you ARE doing that when you give them life without parole"
So why does it matter if we give them capital punishment then if it's basically the same thing?
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203
What's more, is that living out 50 years in captivity (at least I would think) is MUCH more punishment than just having them live out 15 years in captivity. You have to realize, both sentences end in death. I don't understand why it is important for you to actually inject lethal injection in them to die. Why can't you just throw them in a cell to rot? What is the difference? There really isn't any.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 15 years? We could easily get that down to 5. I'm all for firing squads too. "both sentences end in death"
So why prolong it? Because it is cheaper? If we really wanted to, we could cut the costs by restructuring the whole policy.
You say it yourself "what's the diffference? There really isn't any.", exactly, so why are you opposed to it? We can make it cheaper.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203
Except that one is vastly cheaper than the other.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 We can change that...
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203
I would like to see how you would do that. If you are proposing that we go back to firing squads then I wish you luck in actually convincing people to do that sort of thing.
Or you could just move to Saudi Arabia... Seriously, what you are proposing is something practiced in third world countries.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 A guy just got executed by firing squad in Utah. It might be more violent in nature, but it would be over sooner and be less painful than injection can be.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203
I don't agree with you and don't even see any point in arguing against your point. I would entertain you if you could actually gain a large majority of people who agreed with you.
Remember, in a lot of states the chair is illegal. You really think you are going to get people to go along with firing squad? lol
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 The chair is a million times less humane than a firing squad. It is pretty much torture and it can take more than one try to actually kill the person. The so called "humane" choices are only percieved as such because there is no blood or violent action involved. The firing squad is just as humane(if not more) as any other choice.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203
The chair is also a million times less personal than a firing squad. You act like that has nothing to do with people's choices as well.
You aren't going to convince people to go for firing squad over the chair, let alone lethal injection. It just won't ever happen.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 Lol, so you are willing to torture someone so it's less personal? hahaha, nice. How humane of you!
The guy in Utah CHOSE the firing squad as the way for him to be executed. The chair should be outlawed everywhere, it literally cooks people while they are still alive. It's actually a really stupid way to execute people when you think about it.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203
Quoting myself here: "You act like that has nothing to do with people's choices as well." Grats on completely misquoting me. I wouldn't kill, period.
I never once said I was willing to torture someone. I said personality affects people's opinions on the matter. SOMEONE has to "press the button" to kill someone. Not everyone is as eager to kill someone as you are. Not everyone wants to advertise that they have killed others. There are people who seek revenge for that sort of thing...
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@Nate2203 In a way letting a man rot in prison is far less humane than killing them. They get to spend the rest of there lives: reflecting on what they did, living liking a animal, constantly watching there back in fear of of other inmates, not knowing whether or not they want to beat up/rape/kill u. Death is a very sweet release compared to what some of the inmates have to go through on a day-to-day.
deathdealer13cat 1 year ago
@deathdealer13cat EXACTLY, the punishment is still supposed to be HUMANE. I'm not looking to torture these people, just get it over with. They thought it was ok to take someone's life, so theirs will be taken from them. I do not rejoice in the deaths of murderers, in fact I find it sad, but we cannot go soft on people because we are sad.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@Nate2203 You want to kill people to show people that killing people is wrong? Too many people who can't afford good lawyers get railroaded into jail for crimes they didn't commit. Even DNA evidence can be falsified if the prosecutor leans heavily enough on the lab workers. The vast majority of murders happen as crimes of passion or as a result of committing another crime like armed robbery. Very few murderers are the mass murderer type of scum.
TheSaturnalia 1 year ago
What everyone really needs to ask themselves is this: Does having a death penalty really prevent any potential crimes from being committed in the future? What good is killing a man if it does not set a precedent to future criminals.
fr1edweezy 1 year ago 5
@fr1edweezy It would if it got used more consistently.
Nate2203 1 year ago
@fr1edweezy Great point! It seems to me that the best way to prevent murder is to solve murder and thru violence prevention programs. A society that cared about creating safe and welcoming communities would fund these things, NOT a dysfunctional death penalty.
aclunc 1 year ago 3
@aclunc Who says you can't create safe and welcoming communities AND have the death penalty(reformed of course)?
Nate2203 1 year ago
@aclunc well how about this kill them because they are scum and deserve it that way they dont get three meals a day...housing.cable tv...a job which are some things non-criminals cant even get...how is that fai that i pay for them murderes rapists and the like to get all these things when my neigbor cant it isnt far you are a tree hugging pussy and i hope you get shot i bet you will want the person dead
KazGar941 1 year ago
@fr1edweezy well how about this kill them because they are scum and deserve it that way they dont get three meals a day...housing.cable tv...a job which are some things non-criminals cant even get...how is that fai that i pay for them murderes rapists and the like to get all these things when my neigbor cant it isnt far you are a tree hugging pussy and i hope you get shot i bet you will want the person dead
KazGar941 1 year ago
@d3st88
oh, okey...........dot
Agadalif 1 year ago
It's a tough issue, for sure. There are some incredibly evil people on this planet who have reneged on thier membership to the human race, and I wouldn't miss them at all. However, a civilized society must prove itself to be of greater morality than those who trangress it's laws.
greenthumbguy1 1 year ago
Good vid, you covered most of the bases. The one thing that you didn't mention is that even if you do kill the one who's guilty of the crime (usually a few decades after the guy is in jail) there is no way to know that they are actually being punished. No one knows what happens after death. What we do know is that the greatest fear of any convict is to die in jail alone in their cell, decades after the rest of the world has forgotten about them.
TheSaturnalia 1 year ago
why do ppl think that it is more humane to lock a man in a cage for all his days, than it is t kill him. we don't even treat dogs that way.
hollaboutit 1 year ago
@hollaboutit We might not treat dogs like that, but we do treat some other animals like that. For proof see to your local zoo. The humane aspect of life imprisonment is that you can fix it if you've convicted the wrong person of the crime. If you've put someone to death for something, you can't unkill him if you find that there was someone else who was responsible for the crime. Then there is the aspect of making sure the guilty are punished. I've seen no evidence for hell or heaven.
TheSaturnalia 1 year ago
@TheSaturnalia do you know what the murder recidivism rate is? i call it off the tp of my head, but its EXTREMELY low. you want to talk about learning your lesson, i'm game. but, if not, i'd rather be dead.
hollaboutit 1 year ago
@hollaboutit Very low indeed, in fact most trustees in prison are murderers (last I heard, could be wrong), most people who murder do it once. I'm not sure if people actually do learn anything in prison, they might learn how to commit crimes that have a lower chance of getting caught... I think executing people is just a way for them to get out of jail without much punishment.
TheSaturnalia 1 year ago
stupid americans.. always about money, and not 'cause death penalty is fuc*ed up.
Agadalif 1 year ago
Thats why the Amercans just love us Europeans... we are never narrow-minded and use our brains before posting... *sigh*
Do you really think, you could convince a strong supporter of death penalty by mentioning morality? Good luck...
RandomCoolNick 1 year ago
@RandomCoolNick
no.. I never thought that. I just like posting things that pops into my head :P
Agadalif 1 year ago
May I ask how the death penalty is more expensive then life in prison? If the answer is "its not" like I think it is, then what do you plan to do with deathrow inmates if your taking the money from the death penalty and putting it in schools and the police force.
achilles6822 1 year ago
@achilles6822 wrote: "May I ask how the death penalty is more expensive then life in prison?"
The answer is at aclunc(.)org/cutthis
Don't forget to take the parentheses out of that address when pasting it into your browser
On that page you'll find details explaining how cutting the death penalty "would save $1 billion in five years without releasing a single prisoner or jeopardizing public safety."
I hope that helps and
thanks for your interest in the facts :-)
LiberalViewer 1 year ago 4
@LiberalViewer thanks I'll go check it out.
achilles6822 1 year ago
Great video! I like the way you gathered such an ideologically diverse group and had them all match the same message about the unnecessary cost of the death penalty.
Thanks for making and uploading this video :-)
LiberalViewer 1 year ago 12
While saying that the death penalty should be cut due to saving resources is a valid point, surely a more valid one is that no one should have the right to kill another human being? UN Charter- Article 3
" Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
Surely if you kill this murderer, you are as bad as they are? Isn't that a more convincing arguement than economic reasons?
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN For people who are actually civilized, yes. You're quite right about it being a more convincing argument. But the usa is a nation that practices preemptive war, the government does torture people (and is not at all apologetic about it, nor is it willing to prosecute those who committed those crimes), it is a nation that thinks public health care is morally wrong.
TheSaturnalia 1 year ago
Comment removed
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
how is the death penalty expensive?
couger666 1 year ago
@couger666 It takes soo much money for prosecutors to get someone convicted to the death penalty.
Tazn0x 1 year ago
Such an important cause. Thumbs up.
lacigreen 1 year ago 27