Thread: For Capital Punishment or Against it?
View Single Post
Old 07-18-2005, 10:02 PM   #65 (permalink)
aMFliberal
Congressional Representative
 
aMFliberal's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Needham, MA
Posts: 2,335
Points: 8,487, Level: 62
Points: 8,487, Level: 62 Points: 8,487, Level: 62 Points: 8,487, Level: 62
Level up: 13%, 263 Points needed
Level up: 13% Level up: 13% Level up: 13%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
aMFliberal is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds
Cases have gone to the supreme court for those who are prison. Some cases were not even death penalty cases...

Those articles along with many people who are against capital punishment, play around with numbers assuming that, every death penalty case goes to the Supreme court and every other case does not. This is very untrue and a cheap way to convince people that the capital punishment is wrong.

Did the Scott Peterson case go to the supreme court?? Didn't think so. These numbers are true only based on assumptions which would be rarely seen. Does money really matter anyways?? What about what is right?? I believe highly in, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

Now don't go crazy if you disagree with me a little bit, or 100%.
If you're referring to the numbers we both posted, I think you're incorrect in saying that they assume every case goes to the Supreme Court. It's not a cheap way of getting people to disagree with capital punishment, they are average costs for states and different offices etc. and those costs are astronomical. The costs in total of every execution averages to be millions more than the costs of imprisoning a criminal for life.

"Does money really matter anyways?" Holy shit...this is coming from a conservative...I couldn't believe my eyes when I read it

About your "if DNA evidence, execution" idea. It sounds like it makes sense but it would be unfair. The crime is murder, not murder and murder with DNA evidence. If you condemn a criminal to death because DNA evidence was presented in the trial, that criminal is still convicted of murder. Should another criminal convicted of murder not get the death penalty just because there was no DNA evidence, even though they committed the same crime? That's like saying "You're guilty, but you're guilty-er." Reminds me of Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." That idea would not be fair at all.
But it don't take much to get me by
So just booze me up and get me high
Ween