Should The Death Penalty Be Brought Back?

[hobinfoot 25]

1 hour ago, SnailyBoy said:

Well we don't have an official executioner, so would you apply for the job when advertised?

No I wouldn't apply.

[Cyclone 10]

12 minutes ago, danot said:

Leading another troll hunting mission I see. You say paying for expensive treatment with marginal outcome would not be an effective use of public money.  But $300m per exicution seems a legitimate statistical figure? As I said, that'll be largely made up of lawyers fees.   That's America for you.  

Now you want to argue with the evidence?

 

Edit, and no, I don't say it.  NICE say it.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Cyclone

[bendix 10]

Not sure where this $300m figure came from.  In Texas, one of the biggest capital punishment states in the US, each execution is estimated to cost around $2.3m.   The cost is associated largely with the fact that as an irrerversible punishment, the US constutition requires the process to be incredibly rigorous.  Dismissing it as 'lawyer's fees' is a bit simplistic.

 

In comparison it costs Texas around $800,000 to house a prisoner for a 40 year life term in maximum security.

 

Debates are so much better when you use facts, not soundbites.

[Robin-H 11]

4 minutes ago, bendix said:

Not sure where this $300m figure came from.  In Texas, one of the biggest capital punishment states in the US, each execution is estimated to cost around $2.3m.   The cost is associated largely with the fact that as an irrerversible punishment, the US constutition requires the process to be incredibly rigorous.  Dismissing it as 'lawyer's fees' is a bit simplistic.

 

In comparison it costs Texas around $800,000 to house a prisoner for a 40 year life term in maximum security.

 

Debates are so much better when you use facts, not soundbites.

The $300,000,000 is from California (see article I quoted in previous post). 

 

Also, I believe the $2.3m Texan figure was from 1992. I expect costs have increased quite a bit in the last (nearly) 30 years. 

[hobinfoot 25]

1 hour ago, bendix said:

There are, but these are among the most active users.   It's actually not used much around the world now; even those countries that have it on their statutes, rarely use it, or if they do once in a blue moon. Thailand is a good example.

 

Other big DP countries would be Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea and Somalia.   The only mainly first world countries to use it are the US, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan.

 

 

 

I've lost count of the brave online warriors who proudly proclaim they would love to be the executioner.  Of course, they wouldn't.  It's all faux bravado.  Most would recoil at such a responsbility, and rightly so.

 

Being pro-death penalty yet arguing that Derek Bentley shouldnt have been hanged seems contradictory to me.  You can't support the death penalty and talk about beyond all reasonable doubt on the one hand, and then cite Bentley on the other.  He was convicted beyond all reasonable doubt at the time, and only reprieved decades later.

 

What might seem certain today, could easily be overturned tomorrow.

 

 Never mentioned reasonable doubt. What I did say was if a person was caught in the act of murder or DNA evidence that's also been used to prove a person innocent. 

[Cyclone 10]

1 minute ago, Robin-H said:

The $300,000,000 is from California (see article I quoted in previous post). 

 

Also, I believe the $2.3m Texan figure was from 1992. I expect costs have increased quite a bit in the last (nearly) 30 years. 

Either way it shows that in Texas at some point it cost approximately three times as much to execute someone as to hold them in prison for 40 years.

[Robin-H 11]

2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Either way it shows that in Texas at some point it cost approximately three times as much to execute someone as to hold them in prison for 40 years.

At least, yes.

4 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

 Never mentioned reasonable doubt. What I did say was if a person was caught in the act of murder or DNA evidence that's also been used to prove a person innocent. 

DNA evidence is used to convict people beyond reasonable doubt. It is not used to say something did or didn’t happen beyond all doubt. 

[hobinfoot 25]

11 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

At least, yes.

DNA evidence is used to convict people beyond reasonable doubt. It is not used to say something did or didn’t happen beyond all doubt. 

I believe DNA evidence goes so far beyond doubt that it's so far out of sight in proving a persons guilt or innocence. And what about someone caught in the act of  murder ?

[Robin-H 11]

2 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

I believe DNA evidence goes so far beyond doubt that it's so far out of sight in proving a persons guilt or innocence. And what about someone caught in the act of  murder ?

DNA evidence isn’t infallible, eg mix ups at the lab for example. 

 

So if you’re caught in the act you get the death penalty, but if you’re a ‘better’ murderer and do it without anyone seeing, you don’t? That doesn’t seem fair. 

[apelike 10]

30 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

At least, yes.

DNA evidence is used to convict people beyond reasonable doubt. It is not used to say something did or didn’t happen beyond all doubt. 

DNA evidence cannot be used on its own to convict anyone beyond reasonable doubt as DNA evidence can also be fallible. It is used in conjunction with other damning evidence to convict.

[hobinfoot 25]

7 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

DNA evidence isn’t infallible, eg mix ups at the lab for example. 

 

So if you’re caught in the act you get the death penalty, but if you’re a ‘better’ murderer and do it without anyone seeing, you don’t? That doesn’t seem fair. 

I don't believe in a mandatory death penalty. If the person is caught in the act then I've no problem with them receiving a death sentence but if there isn't enough evidence to receive a death sentence but it's beyond reasonable doubt they should be sentenced to prison.

[max 13]

Killing someone is either wrong or it isn't; anyone saying that someone should be killed for killing someone is a bit paradoxical.

 

Plus, the commandment often quoted is "thou shalt not kill", which doesn't have exceptions attached to it.