Should The Death Penalty Be Brought Back?

[danot 10]

2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Right, well, that's just insane isn't it.

Firstly, it costs more, as demonstrated in the US.

Secondly, the judicial system isn't perfect, our history and all over the world there are miscarriages of justice, you can't resurrect someone you've executed.

Thirdly, well, given that there is no cost saving, it's impossible to put right, it doesn't work as a deterrent and it's only purpose is revenge, what possible reason could you have for introducing a false dichotomy in order to try to justify such a barbaric thing?

 

7 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

It's not. Far from it. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/20/california-death-penalty-execution-costs

 

Each death penalty case has cost California $300m. Life in prison is slightly cheaper than that! I'll admit that other states do it more cheaply, it's still much much more expensive that keeping someone in a cell for 40+ years. 

Lawyers fees no doubt. 

[Robin-H 11]

4 minutes ago, danot said:

 

Lawyers fees no doubt. 

Sorry misread your comment! Changed mine

 

I image a lot the fees are lawyers fees yes, but they are obviously vital if you are sentencing someone to death. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Robin-H

[danot 10]

11 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

That's a ridiculous thing to say. 

 

So people would be sentenced to death without using lawyers? 

Some innocent people die unjustly too. Its a far greater injustice to allow innocent people to die because their treatment is too expensive than to leathally inject a lifer  whose crimes are beyond doubt. IMO.

Edited February 27, 2019 by danot

[Halibut 12]

9 minutes ago, danot said:

Some innocent people die unjustly too. Its a far greater injustice to allow innocent people to die because their treatment is too expensive than to leathally inject a lifer  whose crimes are beyond doubt. IMO.

We've been through this. It's a strawman. Nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[danot 10]

4 minutes ago, Halibut said:

We've been through this. It's a strawman. Nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It isn't a strawman. Its an example of how state funding is unfairly and unjustifiably distributed. Would you consider fundraising for someone's life saving medical treatment an unavoidable consequence of life?

[SnailyBoy 10]

2 minutes ago, danot said:

It isn't a strawman. Its an example of how state funding is unfairly and unjustifiably distributed. Would you consider fundraising for someone's life saving medical treatment an unavoidable consequence of life?

I'm completely lost here

 

Can you state your argument in simple terms?

 

 

[Halibut 12]

7 minutes ago, danot said:

It isn't a strawman. Its an example of how state funding is unfairly and unjustifiably distributed. Would you consider fundraising for someone's life saving medical treatment an unavoidable consequence of life?

I think you're in the wrong thread.

[danot 10]

1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

I'm completely lost here

 

Can you state your argument in simple terms?

 

 

 The lives of innocent critically ill people shouldn't depend on 

People having a whip-round especially when the costs of keeping mass murderers imprisoned for life are met unreservedly. 

[Cyclone 10]

15 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

I'm completely lost here

 

Can you state your argument in simple terms?

 

 

I think it goes something like this.

 

NICE doesn't approve for use some expensive treatments with marginal outcomes because they are not an effective use of public money.

Locking people up is expensive.

He then incorrectly claims that killing people is cheaper.

Thus he concludes, life in prison should always be the death penalty, thus reducing the cost to the state and allowing NICE to fund more marginal treatments.

 

He ignores the facts that innocent people will be executed, that it isn't cheaper, that it isn't a deterrent and that the only purpose of the death penalty is revenge.

It's an argument based on a false dichotomy AND a persistent refusal to accept that the death penalty is not cheaper than life in prison.

 

But then we know he's a massive troll, so no doubt he's just wasting everyone's time by saying something controversial with no actual recourse to logic nor any interest in the subject really.

[Cyclone 10]

1 minute ago, danot said:

 The lives of innocent critically ill people shouldn't depend on 

People having a whip-round especially when the costs of keeping mass murderers imprisoned for life are met unreservedly. 

FALSE DICHOTOMY.

And

Death Penalty costs MORE than life in prison.

 

Now move on, you're demonstrably wrong.

[SnailyBoy 10]

1 minute ago, danot said:

 The lives of innocent critically ill people shouldn't depend on 

People having a whip-round especially when the costs of keeping mass murderers imprisoned for life are met unreservedly. 

I'm still not getting it.

 

[hobinfoot 25]

I've no problem with executing people who murder others. But I also believe that the evidence should be %100 certain like being caught in the act or forensic proof that's beyond doubt like the recent case in Scotland.