Not killing people saves YOU money! (766 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.59 on 27 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by D7 (View user info) at 2004-06-07 13:17:14 EDT
I know everyone has their own well-formed opinion for or against the death penalty, but I'm going to present you with two reasons against it. One is psychological, of which you can argue against, and a second, based on fact, that is economical.
Proponents of the death penalty will tell you that killing someone for a crime is a deterrent for other people to not commit a similar crime. This is seems wrong to me on several levels. First and foremost, no one who does something wrong believes that they are going to get caught; otherwise they wouldn't do it. Do you speed on the highway with money set aside to pay the ticket you're inevitably going to receive? Of course not, you don't think you're going to get caught. This is just magnified at the level of killing someone. It takes a certain type of individual to actually take another human beings life. They obviously don't have the same developed sense of right and wrong most people have. Therefore, they certainly don't have the slightest fear they are going to get caught if they've already crossed the line to kill someone. One more example: You find your wife fucking your neighbor in your bed. Do you really stop and think, hmmm my state has the death penalty. I'm not going to kill this cheatin' bitch and that ass-hole. Either you're the type of person who is going to kill them, or the type of person who is going to walk out the fucking door.
My second reason is based on what we all love more than anything else in the world, Money. It costs about $22,000 a year for a state to take care of a prisoner. (if you don't believe that you can look it up) Lets say a person is in prison for 50 years. It costs the state, the taxpayer, $1.1 million dollars for those 50 years. If you are sentenced to death, and reality is staring you in the face, you're going to appeal that ruling to delay it as long as possible. Ted Bundy's, 10 year stay on death row, involving numerous appeals and excessive imprisonment fees, eventually cost the Florida state taxpayers more than $6 million dollars. Ted Bundy killed dozens of women, and was a deranged sociopath. One could argue he was one of the most deserving of death of anyone who has lived. His death sentence cost taxpayers almost six times as much as a 50-year stay in prison. I'd rather pay 6 times less in whatever percentage of my income goes to the prisons and have killers locked up forever, cause I love rolling around naked in all my money!
Anyway, agree or disagree, but at least let these arguments sink in before you tell me to fuck off with a big -2. I can't say that if a loved one of mine were killed I wouldn't want the head of whomever did it, but I hope I could at least try to turn the other cheek.
User Reviews
Submitted by DetroitCity (user info) at 2004-07-08 19:48:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Killin' people is wrong, since most people don't get a fair trial anyway
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-07-08 18:01:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by JMcBride (user info) at 2004-07-08 17:49:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Robot9698 is gay
Submitted by Robot9698 (user info) at 2004-07-08 15:06:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by JMcBride (user info) at 2004-06-10 16:47:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No posts of his own either
Submitted by JMcBride (user info) at 2004-06-10 16:47:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
He did it again didn't he?
Submitted by daggotht (user info) at 2004-06-10 16:34:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by JMcBride (user info) at 2004-06-09 14:12:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love money, don't kill people
Submitted by dohnuts (user info) at 2004-06-09 08:41:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:32:43 (#)
Ranking: 1
Is there any solid evidence that the death penalty serves as any kind of deterrent? Criminals don't think they are going to get caught and someone as depraved enough to kill someone is obviously not operating on fully functioning logical reasoning. I would be shocked if there were one single case where some psycho had a knife to someone's throat and thought, "now gee if I cut this guy's head off and use it as a bookend I could get the death penalty."
------------------------------------------------
Almost all of the psychological and sociological evidence points to the death penalty as NOT serving as a deterrent, and because of the mandatory appeals process for death penalty sentences it is always more expensive to execute a criminal than it is to imprison one.
The death penalty does nothing but satisfy society's and family members' desire for vengeance.
Submitted by mooisaidmoo (user info) at 2004-06-08 19:49:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow, that was really a conversation killer. Sorry!
Submitted by mooisaidmoo (user info) at 2004-06-07 21:48:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is my first post, and I felt I had to write something because this is an issue I happen to feel very strongly about.
My first point would be that vengence is a feeling. Other feelings, such as hate and rage, must be controlled for obvious reasons - murder can come about from a person's lack of control of these particular feelings, for instance - and so must the feeling of vengence be controlled. The desire of any number of people to take revenge on a criminal should have no part in a modern and democratic penal system, in my opinion. Torture, as well as execution, is as barbaric as any crime supposedly being dealt with - how can any government exact revenge on felons through its courts with any integrity? Surely by making vengence part of the system, governments open up the argument that vengence is just as acceptible at an individual level? (This also applies to certain types of discrimination being made acceptible, but I wont get into that...)
Secondly, who is anyone to deny another person the right to life? In the same way as a murderer commits a horrendous crime by taking the life of their victim, a court which then decides to take that murderer's life is guilty of the same thing - NOBODY should have the right to take anyone else's life, and a system which does so completely undermines the sanctity of the lives it is trying to protect.
Thirdly, any executions carried out by a government which has (apparently) been democratically elected to represent its citizens are the responsibility of every single citizen in that country. I believe no person, regardless of whether they are in the majority or the minority, should be made to carry the deaths of other people with them if they do not support such actions.
Finally, as long as there is any shred of doubt surrounding a case there can be no question that the death penalty is wholly inappropriate. There are many, many cases of people being proved innocent after they have been executed, and the prospect of this happening again is abhorrent. Surely there can be no consideration of a death penalty as long as the legal system is as inaccurate as it currently is and, in my opinion, will always be?
And those are my main feelings on the subject, aside from the economic advantages of abolishing the death penalty and the fact that evidence suggests capital punishment is NOT a deterrent to criminals (most crimes being those committed in the heat of the moment anyway). Sorry to be a bit tangental, but I do hold very strong views on the subject and thought people might be interested to hear them (if they can be bothered to read through all this...)
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2004-06-07 15:06:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by lawryde (user info) at 2004-06-07 14:08:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
Insanethemind-
I realize that this isn't these aren't the most developed arguments in the world, but you have to consider the audience when writing something like this. I would bore everyone if I went into too much depth. I was just trying to get the main points across.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very well.
Munky,
good point. that's always been my main motivation for not supporting death penalty- people executed when they didn't even commit a crime.
I won't lie, i have vengence in my veins, whenever there is some brutal crime of course i first think ' oh they should torture him'.
but after i sit and think like a civilized individual, that is overcome easily.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-07 14:23:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Dj, point being - There are people in the news for being released when it was found
they were mistakenly jailed. Wouldn't it suck if we had
put them to death?
I really have no opinion on the death penalty. Both sides
of the argument have valid points.
Submitted by DJ_Krypplephite (user info) at 2004-06-07 14:16:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:42:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
See "The Life Of David Gale" goooood movie!
thats assisted suicide, so he deserved the death penalty anyway.
im pro-death penalty. who says that these people should take up cells when we could execute them? plus some people just deserve to die. i dont see why we dont just shoot one bullet into the back of their heads.
Submitted by lawryde (user info) at 2004-06-07 14:08:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Insanethemind-
I realize that this isn't these aren't the most developed arguments in the world, but you have to consider the audience when writing something like this. I would bore everyone if I went into too much depth. I was just trying to get the main points across.
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2004-06-07 14:03:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes I do disagree with your first 'point'. People who murder do not all necessarily have a lesser developed sense of wrong and right. (i see what you are getting at and I also disagree with even the 'ideas of right and wrong'. You can't really compare relative emotions, can you?)
e.g an african tribesman killing his wife for looking at another man compared with an american serial axe murderer (in some places it's accepted. hopefully thats clear now)
People kill in the heat of the moment. People kill by mistake, yet still are guilty of murder by our society's standards. Then there are the mentally ill and mentally incompetent.
Basically, in my opinion, your argument is riddled with holes.
At the same time I agree overall
Submitted by wazzawazzayo (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:57:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think we should castrate pedophiles.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:56:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yea but Kaelic, we're not talking about a little weed production here, we're talking about the kind of people who would rape and murder.
Psycho Killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est?
Fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far far better
Run run run run run run run away
Psycho Killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est?
Fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far far better
Run run run run run run run away
How much did it cost to put Tim McVeigh to death?
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:54:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you researched this further, premeditated murder (the Ted Bundys) are much rarer than spur of the moment murders. Most of the latter are committed by acquaintances and are crimes of passion, i.e. spouses, lovers. Death penalty for psychos is warranted, whereas unplanned murders I agree should be jailed.
Oh yeah, average jail time for second degree murder in the US..7 years.
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:47:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
You know what else would be great? If we let out the 80% of non-violent drug offenders we are keeping locked up. How much money would that be?
And you're wrong. Let me think of how to phrase this so that it doesn't incriminate me at all ... I have ... had an encounter with the correctional system ... that acted as a deterrent from future misconduct ... in the present. If you get my jist.
People remember pain and suffering better than anything else.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:42:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
See "The Life Of David Gale" goooood movie!
Submitted by jeeves (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:38:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Jeeves gets away with murder all the time.
Submitted by lawryde (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:33:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My point exactly Loki
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:32:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Is there any solid evidence that the death penalty serves as any kind of deterrent? Criminals don't think they are going to get caught and someone as depraved enough to kill someone is obviously not operating on fully functioning logical reasoning. I would be shocked if there were one single case where some psycho had a knife to someone's throat and thought, "now gee if I cut this guy's head off and use it as a bookend I could get the death penalty."
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:28:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I was going to give you -2 because you don't obviousle fail understand deterrents. The possibility of getting the death penalty deters. A criminal understands that they might get caught. Some probability of capture times punishment is weighed against benefits of the crime. (some or all of this can by subconscious) The only way your case of them not thinking they will be caught is if they are positive (0 probability) they won't be. Of course crimes of passion don't really count. But they also usually don't warrant the death panalty either.
But you are right about the economical costs. so only -1
Submitted by helium_the_balloon (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:24:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree, we should torture them instead. In fact we don't have to bother as prisons have a large number of black convicts who provide this service without charge and without any sandal wearing hippies disagreeing.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-06-07 13:23:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I would have to disagree with your logic.
Ted Bundy is an extreme example to use. Not every death row inmate is Ted Bundy and going to cost $6M in appeals.