Final Death Row Statements

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I can't believe you fall for that crap, they don't execute you any more unless the evidence clearly shows you are the guilty party. Prison's are jam packed with "innocent" people and they will claim that right up to the day they die no matter how guilty they are. Probably many of them have been claiming it for so long they have themselves convinced they actually are innocent. I think if the DNA is there and the evidence is concrete then capital punishment is the way to go. None of this paying taxes out of our asses so we can house and feed some piece of crap like Michael Rafferty and give him a right to life. Screw him, he has forfeited his right to life imo.

What's wrong with you?

[HELPNEEDED]

If killing someone is wrong, it can never be justified - unless there is no judiciary action

[Nage Waza]

I think that as long as we are willing to send troops away with the clear intent to kill (or be killed) it is reasonable to execute people in our own country that are essentially enemies (murderers, rapists etc). When there is clear evidence they should be swiftly dealt with, enough of these huge housing and criminal system costs.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I feel more for the families of our soldiers that never made it back then I do for some guy that murdered someone.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Just admit you were wrong and move on, read my last post before this one, it shows how California will save nothing if they change that law. Your math is no more fact then mine so stop throwing the word fact into this when it clearly is not. Just because one person writes a report on a study they did does not make the results fact. I really hope you do not read the Inquirer.

These are studies from universities, not some random opiniated columnist you quoted.

Just to add....

A recent Duke University study of North Carolina's death penalty costs found that the state could save $11 million a year by substituting life in prison for the death penalty. An earlier Duke study found that the state spent $2.1 million more on a death penalty case than on one seeking a life sentence.

The Tennessee Comptroller of the Currency recently estimated that death penalty trials cost an average of 48 percent more than trials in which prosecutors sought life sentences.
It was much the same story in Kansas. A state-sponsored study found that death penalty cases cost 70 percent more than murder trials that didn't seek the death penalty.

A Florida study found the state could cut its costs by $51 million simply by eliminating the death penalty.
But no state matches the dilemma of California, where almost 700 inmates are sitting on death row and, according to Natasha Minsker, author of a new report by the Northern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, few will ever actually be put to death. In fact, she says, the odds against being executed are so great, murder suspects in California actually seek the death penalty because it is the only way to get a single room in the state's prison system.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27...#ixzz28UIx683D

[Azure]

Crime rates are usually a direct result of social conditions.

Innocent people are sometimes executed by mistake. There was a case in Texas a while back where a father was executed for starting a fire that burned his two kids. Someone working on the case discovered some crappy forensic work done at the time of the original investigation, and requested a stay on the execution until he could come up with more evidence to overturn the verdict, and Rick Perry ignored the request. The father was executed by the state of Texas, and afterwards it was proven that he was in fact innocent.

But that doesn't mean there aren't sick people out there that need to be removed from society. Lock them up in a 4x8 cell. I don't think it is right for a government to have the power to execute its own citizens.

[1stLand]

Capital Punishment is just wrong.

Let them live out their lives in a jail cell with monthly Pizza Party privileges for good behavior. Me thinks this is how Civilized Societies should behave.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Iginla

This isn't my math, it's been studied to death and it is a fact. Death rown inmates cost the system more than regular life sentence prisoners.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

1) Does it cost more to sentence someone to execution than to sentence them to permanent imprisonment?
Yes. At every step of the process, the death penalty costs more.

• Death penalty trials cost an estimated $1.1 million more than a trial where the District Attorney seeks a sentence of permanent imprisonment. Unlike post-conviction costs funded by the state budget, trial expenses are borne largely from county budgets.
• Housing on death row costs at least$90,000 more per inmate per year than housing in the general prison population, where those sentenced to permanent imprisonment are housed.
• Funding for post-conviction prosecution and defense attorneys costs $85,000 per death row inmate per year. Inmates sentenced to permanent imprisonment are not afforded mandatory appeals.

As of 2009, California taxpayers spend an estimated $117 million each year at the post-conviction level seeking the execution of the 680 inmates on death row.
Death penalty trials cost local taxpayers an additional $20 million per year, at the current death sentencing rate of 20 sentences per year.
In total, the death penalty system cost California taxpayers $137 million each year, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice found, whereas permanent imprisonment for all those currently on death row would cost just $11 million.

While this is all fair enough, it's not inherent to capital punishment that it absolutely must cost more. The implementation is more expensive. If an argument against capital punishment is premised on cost, then all the other side has to do is figure out a feasible way to make it cheaper to do. Easier said than done, perhaps, but hardly impossible or even improbable.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

What's wrong with you?

What is wrong with me? You think that guy should have the right to live out his life with a tv, a gym to his disposal, and three square meals a day? I bet you would change your tune if you had an 8 year old daughter he had raped and murdered.

[Thor]

Sorry, but the major reason Americans still support this is because they do so with nationalistic fervor.

The statistics, the arguments against it, everything sides with a state not putting people to death, yet the only nations that still do are a very nationalistic USA and theocracies.

Sorry, but its shameful, not only does the death penalty not decrease crime, but it always and will always put to death innocent people while costing the public more money.

Not to say that this should at all be about money, it should never be in the equation. Idiots always like to point out how expensive it is to put people behind bars, while never asking themselves what it would cost to let those people be free.

We have a social contract, one that our taxes pave roads, build schools, imprison those who can't belong in society...

But a SAD and FRIGHTENING fact is that the USA has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, ahead of China, North Korea, etc.. A system in the US that is heavily weighted to racism, and focused on soft drug use&possession.

Again, the US leads the way with ignorance of the facts, ignorance of the truth, and ignorance of the people.

Capital punishment belongs in the dark ages, no argument in the modern age other than revenge and anger can suggest this is a good idea.

You're idiots if you support capital punishment, sorry there is no nice way to suggest otherwise.

[OffsideSpecialist]

Really, what difference does it make if a person is in prison or dead? They are about the same threat either way. There is also a very good reason why sentencing is left to emotionally stable judges rather than emotionally charged victims of crime.

All in all, it seems the only reason to have the death penalty is because some folks get a sick thrill out of seeing others die. Revenge is not justice. These aren't good people, but if someone were to murder somebody close to me, and if I murdered them, I would be sentenced to jail. Why should the state get away with it?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

What is wrong with me? You think that guy should have the right to live out his life with a tv, a gym to his disposal, and three square meals a day? I bet you would change your tune if you had an 8 year old daughter he had raped and murdered.

I'd try to kill him myself, but that would be a crime of passion as a father, governments killing citizens under their law is barbaric.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Thor

You're idiots if you support capital punishment, sorry there is no nice way to suggest otherwise.

This is kind of silly. Support it how? In principle, or in proposing that it be law in Canada?

To start with, and this is an aside, obviously your entire position is premised on it being morally wrong (and far on the "wrong" end of that spectrum, if a spectrum exists) to kill people. Probably most would agree with that. That said, most would also intuitively say there are circumstances where it isn't wrong to kill someone (self defence, soldiers in war being the two obvious examples). In order to make your point cogently you really need to define the parameters of the moral statement "it is wrong to kill people in this situation", and tell me the basis for that statement.

Let me put it to you this way. For these purposes, assume everything else is equal - cost, humane methods, the system - this is a moral issue. The central argument against capital punishment is that it is morally wrong for the state to kill people. This implies that we have placed some moral value (I use the term value in the algebraic sense more than the ethical one) on the act of killing. I.e., some acts the state can take are more morally "bad" than others, and killing a guilty person is so bad that we can't tolerate it, so we shouldn't do it. In other words, X (capital punishment) is morally worse as an option than Y (any other punitive measure we might currently employ). This implies that there are alternatives that are less morally wrong. This is where I have an issue: I'm not convinced that it's less morally "wrong" to put someone in a cage and keep them locked up until they die in prison, than it is to put them to death.

In order to take the position that capital punishment is so far off the radar of modern society you need to be able to take the position that it's utterly morally reprehensible compared to the alternatives. On what basis are we saying that X is worse than Y? I would put to you that not being convinced of the truth of "X is worse than Y" is not an indication that a person is an idiot.

In other words, put up. You don't get to just call everyone else idiots without backing your position.

[SeeBass]

I think for people that believe in a Hell executing somebody may be easier to rationalize.

[CedarMeter]

"Thomas J. Grasso: ‘I did not get my Spaghetti-O’s, I got spaghetti. I want the press to know this"

Kind of a strange last words..Creepy website.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

This is kind of silly. Support it how? In principle, or in proposing that it be law in Canada?

To start with, and this is an aside, obviously your entire position is premised on it being morally wrong (and far on the "wrong" end of that spectrum, if a spectrum exists) to kill people. Probably most would agree with that. That said, most would also intuitively say there are circumstances where it isn't wrong to kill someone (self defence, soldiers in war being the two obvious examples). In order to make your point cogently you really need to define the parameters of the moral statement "it is wrong to kill people in this situation", and tell me the basis for that statement.

Let me put it to you this way. For these purposes, assume everything else is equal - cost, humane methods, the system - this is a moral issue. The central argument against capital punishment is that it is morally wrong for the state to kill people. This implies that we have placed some moral value (I use the term value in the algebraic sense more than the ethical one) on the act of killing. I.e., some acts the state can take are more morally "bad" than others, and killing a guilty person is so bad that we can't tolerate it, so we shouldn't do it. In other words, X (capital punishment) is morally worse as an option than Y (any other punitive measure we might currently employ). This implies that there are alternatives that are less morally wrong. This is where I have an issue: I'm not convinced that it's less morally "wrong" to put someone in a cage and keep them locked up until they die in prison, than it is to put them to death.

In order to take the position that capital punishment is so far off the radar of modern society you need to be able to take the position that it's utterly morally reprehensible compared to the alternatives. On what basis are we saying that X is worse than Y? I would put to you that not being convinced of the truth of "X is worse than Y" is not an indication that a person is an idiot.

In other words, put up. You don't get to just call everyone else idiots without backing your position.

or it just feels right not to do it.

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

What is wrong with me? You think that guy should have the right to live out his life with a tv, a gym to his disposal, and three square meals a day? I bet you would change your tune if you had an 8 year old daughter he had raped and murdered.

no I would not, if it is a crime to kill someone, the same action can not become justice.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

or it just feels right not to do it.

This is moral subjectivism which precludes the possibility of passing any moral judgment on psychopaths for their behaviour because, well, hey, it felt right to them. Try again.

[sclitheroe]

My personal take on state sanctioned executions is that it is an acceptable option only when there are no viable alternatives. If we could definitively say that we were unable to contain a criminal in Canadian custody to prevent them from causing further harm, then we would have no other options. Our correctional system infrastructure however, is sufficiently developed that we can guarantee we always have a less violent means of eliminating the threat. It's extremely unlikely a criminal will escape from Millhaven, and in fact if they try, deadly force is authorized and will be used, since the remaining containment options (cells, razor wire, fences, etc) have been exhausted.

Same goes for military action - if lethal force is the only way to contain a threat, so be it. There are clearly situations that cannot be contained, eliminated, or mitigated through other means in this space, but that doesn't excuse a society like Canada from trying all other options first (eg. economic, negotiation, political sanctions, etc.).

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

While this is all fair enough, it's not inherent to capital punishment that it absolutely must cost more. The implementation is more expensive. If an argument against capital punishment is premised on cost, then all the other side has to do is figure out a feasible way to make it cheaper to do. Easier said than done, perhaps, but hardly impossible or even improbable.

Even if it costs one billion dollars to jail an inmate, I wouldn't want the death penalty. Words can not describe how against the death penalty I am. It actually makes me sick that people even defend it let alone a country as advanced as the United States still uses it.

The whole it costs more argument has nothing to do with my feelings towards the death penalty.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Iginla

Even if it costs one billion dollars to jail an inmate, I wouldn't want the death penalty. Words can not describe how against the death penalty I am. It actually makes me sick that people even defend it let alone a country as advanced as the United States still uses it.

The whole it costs more argument has nothing to do with my feelings towards the death penalty.

Well we are on the total opposite side of the fence. If you have a dog and it attacks and kills somebody you destroy it and it is a dog, it does not have the same understanding as a human to know that is wrong. People who murder other people are a waste of space and a burden on society as well as the victims family. Everybody is entitled to their opinion though.