(04-10-2014 09:59 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:51 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Every murderer put to death never kills again.

Every murderer locked up forever never kills again. Maybe it's just a personal preference, but I'd rather they be kept alive with nothing but countless decades of prison "life" to look forward to.

I agree. There are fates worse than death. Why would we want to give murderers the easy way out?

(04-10-2014 10:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:59 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:51 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Every murderer put to death never kills again.

Every murderer locked up forever never kills again. Maybe it's just a personal preference, but I'd rather they be kept alive with nothing but countless decades of prison "life" to look forward to.

I agree. There are fates worse than death. Why would we want to give murderers the easy way out?

I'm not some "respect life" liberal about this either. I want their lives to be filled with countless days of mental anguish. Their existence in their own personal box should be stripped of everything but a single window to look out on the world they will never step foot on again. I want them to be forced to endure a lifetime of suffering and dehumanization with no end until their own heart quits from exhaustion.

(04-10-2014 09:53 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:46 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:42 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:33 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:26 AM)Hitch Wrote:  I don't understand the appeal of the death penalty. From a vengeance perspective, lock him in a hole until he dies from old age. Keep him alive for as long as possible.

When he dies, the punishment is over. Why rush it?

Deterrence.

I'm not sure the data bears that out.

It does, and you can see that it does because if you give a murderer a choice of death or life, guess what, overwhelming they choose life in prison. So there is deterrence.

How does the sentencing preference of criminals point to conclusions about how to prevent criminal behavior in the first place? The fact that the death penalty was on the table all along obviously didn't prevent the criminal behavior.

And if we're talking about gang members, they are much more worried about being gunned down on the street than having Texas put a needle in their arm 15 years down the road. If fear of death doesn't deter gang behavior, why would a state sponsored death penalty?

Frankly, I think the world is better without these types of people walking around, but I think the death penalty is getting off easy. Having a judge say, "We will keep you alive for the next 80 years but will never let you out of your cage..." is much more vengeful. There's a reason why death is called "the easy way out."

Nothing can prevent criminal behavior, short of a Minority Report world.

Maybe you should read up on deterrence. Continued emotional response does not advance your argument.

Lifers have escaped and killed again.

(04-10-2014 10:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:53 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:46 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:42 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:33 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Deterrence.

I'm not sure the data bears that out.

It does, and you can see that it does because if you give a murderer a choice of death or life, guess what, overwhelming they choose life in prison. So there is deterrence.

How does the sentencing preference of criminals point to conclusions about how to prevent criminal behavior in the first place? The fact that the death penalty was on the table all along obviously didn't prevent the criminal behavior.

And if we're talking about gang members, they are much more worried about being gunned down on the street than having Texas put a needle in their arm 15 years down the road. If fear of death doesn't deter gang behavior, why would a state sponsored death penalty?

Frankly, I think the world is better without these types of people walking around, but I think the death penalty is getting off easy. Having a judge say, "We will keep you alive for the next 80 years but will never let you out of your cage..." is much more vengeful. There's a reason why death is called "the easy way out."

Nothing can prevent criminal behavior, short of a Minority Report world.

Maybe you should read up on deterrence. Continued emotional response does not advance your argument.

You're the one with the position that the death penalty is an effective deterrent of crime. Please provide data to support your claim.

My position is that life in prison is an opportunity for a harsher punishment.

(04-10-2014 10:05 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Lifers have escaped and killed again.

I'd rather spend the money on better locks than death penalty appeals.

They don't even have to escape. They kill other prisoners. Might be that non-violent brother who sold a little weed.

(04-10-2014 10:05 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Lifers have escaped and killed again.

I"m sure that it has happened. I wonder however if there is any list that we could refer to . I bet it would be interesting.

(04-10-2014 10:05 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Lifers have escaped and killed again.

This. And, it costs money and these folks pose a threat to other inmates and their guards. I believe there should be more uniformity in the death penalty, but it is the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. No one wants to die.

Executing somebody is extremely expensive, mostly because of legal costs, but still.

(04-10-2014 10:10 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:05 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Lifers have escaped and killed again.

This. And, it costs money and these folks pose a threat to other inmates and their guards. I believe there should be more uniformity in the death penalty, but it is the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. No one wants to die.

They're going to die eventually anyway. How does speeding up the time of death create more punishment? All it does is end the suffering that could be imposed on them.

Some murderers deserve to die. I know it is expensive, but so is warehousing them. And as Paul says, they can kill people and guards in prison and have escaped and killed again.

(04-10-2014 10:11 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:10 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:05 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Lifers have escaped and killed again.

This. And, it costs money and these folks pose a threat to other inmates and their guards. I believe there should be more uniformity in the death penalty, but it is the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. No one wants to die.

They're going to die eventually anyway. How does speeding up the time of death create more punishment? All it does is end the suffering that could be imposed on them.

IN many of these places, they get a private cell with tv and all expenses paid. They get one hour rec time. For many of them, this isn't really a downgrade. Not exactly "suffering". But, I really don't believe in suffering. There should be a penalty, and that is the ultimate penalty.

Our justice system is not set up for vengeance, it is set up as an impartial and reasonable response to crimes committed, which reflect the will the of the people. Watching someone suffer in jail is not "justice," its a primal instinct of individual vengeance against a criminal.

Justice should be to punish and in some cases to rehabilitate. In cold blooded murder like this case, i see the need for death as a punishment more than a need to rehabilitate.

(04-10-2014 10:23 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  Our justice system is not set up for vengeance, it is set up as an impartial and reasonable response to crimes committed, which reflect the will the of the people. Watching someone suffer in jail is not "justice," its a primal instinct of individual vengeance against a criminal.

Justice should be to punish and in some cases to rehabilitate. In cold blooded murder like this case, i see the need for death as a punishment more than a need to rehabilitate.

Which is why I never referred to my preference as justice but rather used the term vengeance.

(04-10-2014 10:06 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:53 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:46 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:42 AM)Hitch Wrote:  I'm not sure the data bears that out.

It does, and you can see that it does because if you give a murderer a choice of death or life, guess what, overwhelming they choose life in prison. So there is deterrence.

How does the sentencing preference of criminals point to conclusions about how to prevent criminal behavior in the first place? The fact that the death penalty was on the table all along obviously didn't prevent the criminal behavior.

And if we're talking about gang members, they are much more worried about being gunned down on the street than having Texas put a needle in their arm 15 years down the road. If fear of death doesn't deter gang behavior, why would a state sponsored death penalty?

Frankly, I think the world is better without these types of people walking around, but I think the death penalty is getting off easy. Having a judge say, "We will keep you alive for the next 80 years but will never let you out of your cage..." is much more vengeful. There's a reason why death is called "the easy way out."

Nothing can prevent criminal behavior, short of a Minority Report world.

Maybe you should read up on deterrence. Continued emotional response does not advance your argument.

You're the one with the position that the death penalty is an effective deterrent of crime. Please provide data to support your claim.

My position is that life in prison is an opportunity for a harsher punishment.

It is just as easy to show data both ways. But don't overlook, when the victims families are asked what they would consider as justice for their loved ones, they most always say "death". You can be against the ultimate penalty for whatever reason you want, just as I can be for it, for just about the same reason. I reject your argument that life in prison is some kind of perverted long term suffering.

You'd be surprised at the number of times a parent will forgive the convicted.

(04-10-2014 10:32 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:06 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:53 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:46 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  It does, and you can see that it does because if you give a murderer a choice of death or life, guess what, overwhelming they choose life in prison. So there is deterrence.

How does the sentencing preference of criminals point to conclusions about how to prevent criminal behavior in the first place? The fact that the death penalty was on the table all along obviously didn't prevent the criminal behavior.

And if we're talking about gang members, they are much more worried about being gunned down on the street than having Texas put a needle in their arm 15 years down the road. If fear of death doesn't deter gang behavior, why would a state sponsored death penalty?

Frankly, I think the world is better without these types of people walking around, but I think the death penalty is getting off easy. Having a judge say, "We will keep you alive for the next 80 years but will never let you out of your cage..." is much more vengeful. There's a reason why death is called "the easy way out."

Nothing can prevent criminal behavior, short of a Minority Report world.

Maybe you should read up on deterrence. Continued emotional response does not advance your argument.

You're the one with the position that the death penalty is an effective deterrent of crime. Please provide data to support your claim.

My position is that life in prison is an opportunity for a harsher punishment.

It is just as easy to show data both ways. But don't overlook, when the victims families are asked what they would consider as justice for their loved ones, they most always say "death". You can be against the ultimate penalty for whatever reason you want, just as I can be for it, for just about the same reason. I reject your argument that life in prison is some kind of perverted long term suffering.

But the families of victims have a biased idea of justice. Justice should alway be determined by people who have no dog in the hunt.

(04-10-2014 10:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:32 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:06 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:53 AM)Hitch Wrote:  How does the sentencing preference of criminals point to conclusions about how to prevent criminal behavior in the first place? The fact that the death penalty was on the table all along obviously didn't prevent the criminal behavior.

And if we're talking about gang members, they are much more worried about being gunned down on the street than having Texas put a needle in their arm 15 years down the road. If fear of death doesn't deter gang behavior, why would a state sponsored death penalty?

Frankly, I think the world is better without these types of people walking around, but I think the death penalty is getting off easy. Having a judge say, "We will keep you alive for the next 80 years but will never let you out of your cage..." is much more vengeful. There's a reason why death is called "the easy way out."

Nothing can prevent criminal behavior, short of a Minority Report world.

Maybe you should read up on deterrence. Continued emotional response does not advance your argument.

You're the one with the position that the death penalty is an effective deterrent of crime. Please provide data to support your claim.

My position is that life in prison is an opportunity for a harsher punishment.

It is just as easy to show data both ways. But don't overlook, when the victims families are asked what they would consider as justice for their loved ones, they most always say "death". You can be against the ultimate penalty for whatever reason you want, just as I can be for it, for just about the same reason. I reject your argument that life in prison is some kind of perverted long term suffering.

But the families of victims have a biased idea of justice. Justice should alway be determined by people who have no dog in the hunt.

Everybody has a "dog in the hunt;" that's how the system works.

(04-10-2014 10:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:32 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:06 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Nothing can prevent criminal behavior, short of a Minority Report world.

Maybe you should read up on deterrence. Continued emotional response does not advance your argument.

You're the one with the position that the death penalty is an effective deterrent of crime. Please provide data to support your claim.

My position is that life in prison is an opportunity for a harsher punishment.

It is just as easy to show data both ways. But don't overlook, when the victims families are asked what they would consider as justice for their loved ones, they most always say "death". You can be against the ultimate penalty for whatever reason you want, just as I can be for it, for just about the same reason. I reject your argument that life in prison is some kind of perverted long term suffering.

But the families of victims have a biased idea of justice. Justice should alway be determined by people who have no dog in the hunt.

Everybody has a "dog in the hunt;" that's how the system works.

Okay maybe so but it's nothing compared to the family of the victim.