For Capital Punishment or Against it?

thenewnoise · 07-18-2005, 05:21 PM

Now let's wait for a good conservative reply.

RidinHighSpeeds · 07-18-2005, 07:08 PM

You saw my reply..no one replied to that

I think my idea makes a lot of sense. DNA tests that prove those who are guilty, kill them. If their is no DNA tests to prove the person guilty, then life in prison. Simple as that.

thenewnoise · 07-18-2005, 07:27 PM

That would still cost more money because there is still a constitutional right (in CA at least) to take your case to the supreme court. This cost more in paper work, attorney fees, and administrative costs. And there is still the possibility that DNA could be tainted or planted. This is probably rare, but it is a real threat that needs to be addressed.

RidinHighSpeeds · 07-18-2005, 07:47 PM

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%.

aMFliberal · 07-18-2005, 10:02 PM

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.

RidinHighSpeeds · 07-18-2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

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.

I did a bit more research and it turns out you guys were right that it is averaged at about 2 million per prisoner execution. Hopefully that is a fact.

The average costs to prison someone is $40,000-45,000 a year. So it would take around 45-50 years to be at the same costs to execute someone. Maybe I should do some more research and grab the average aged person sitting in jail for life and estimate if they would indeed live 40+ years.

Next point.

You can hear me talk about money when it comes to taxing the hell out of everything. However, when it comes down to something like murder...money shouldn't be the issue. (kinda get my drift?)

You brought up a good point that it's unfair to execute those who are guilty with DNA evidence, and not those without DNA evidence. That's a tough one to think about...maybe in cases when the victim is found guilty, with no possible evidence to prove otherwise (like the Oklahoma City bombing).

I'm just bringing up ideas here.

aMFliberal · 07-18-2005, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds

I did a bit more research and it turns out you guys were right that it is averaged at about 2 million per prisoner execution. Hopefully that is a fact.

The average costs to prison someone is $40,000-45,000 a year. So it would take around 45-50 years to be at the same costs to execute someone. Maybe I should do some more research and grab the average aged person sitting in jail for life and estimate if they would indeed live 40+ years.

I basically posted the same numbers. thenewnoise posted stats to the same effect as well. The averages vary from state to state, that's the only thing to keep in mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds

You can hear me talk about money when it comes to taxing the hell out of everything. However, when it comes down to something like murder...money shouldn't be the issue. (kinda get my drift?)

Ok...you make no point here. It's still millions of dollars in taxpayers' money being wasted.

RidinHighSpeeds · 07-18-2005, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Quote:

Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds

You can hear me talk about money when it comes to taxing the hell out of everything. However, when it comes down to something like murder...money shouldn't be the issue. (kinda get my drift?)

Ok...you make no point here. It's still millions of dollars in taxpayers' money being wasted.

Millions of dollars of taxpayers' money is being wasted on crazy programs like, welfare. I don't think your getting my point

aMFliberal · 07-18-2005, 10:48 PM

Alright, I see what your saying. If taxpayers' money is going to be wasted, why not for killing. You being a conservative, that would not surprise me. I still think my stance is the best way out. You eliminate the moral question of capital punishment by not having it at all and you save millions in dollars, while lightening the load of the courts.

thenewnoise · 07-19-2005, 11:17 AM

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%.

During Scott Peterson's initial trial, there were several petitions made to the California Supreme Court. And under California law, every person sentenced to the death penalty has a constitutional right to be heard before the state supreme court.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peters...cution_ap.html

After the California Supreme Court, it could go through the federal appeals process (all on our tab, of course).

Furthermore, some legal experts were saying that Peterson should be glad to get the death penalty because it is possibly more likely that his conviction will be overturned by the Supreme Court than if he were to just appeal to a lower appeals court. This is because capital punishment cases by law have a much higher level of scrutiny. Though I must admit that those "legal experts" have been few, and not very well known. Still the point remains: We are paying even more money to keep Peterson alive, than if we just locked him up and threw away the key.