[Archived] Hang Em High

[BuckyRover]

Anyone who supports the death penalty is more than a little hard of thinking IMO...

It's a good barometer.

[dopper69]

Although DNA evidence eventually cleared him of his 'crime' those in favour of the death penalty should read up on cases such as Stefan Ivan Kiszko.

[Paul]

It's 3 times more expensive to execute someone than it is to imprison them for life

How does one come to that conclusion tony? I'm anti-death penalty but logic would suggest once the individual has been executed there are no further costs? While I can appreciate the reasoning surely the cost of proving an individual guilty is the same regardless of the penalty and there should not be a higher standard of proof for th death penalty?

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

Maybe all the formalities and legal costs are bigger than we think?

Interestingly in my Law class at college last year we had a vote, tutors included, as to whether they would bring back the death penalty or not. Everyone said "no".

[OscarRaven]

How does one come to that conclusion tony? I'm anti-death penalty but logic would suggest once the individual has been executed there are no further costs? While I can appreciate the reasoning surely the cost of proving an individual guilty is the same regardless of the penalty and there should not be a higher standard of proof for th death penalty?

Death row is maximum security. Constant appeals (what do they have to lose?). Extensive medical support. Average stay over 10 years. Oh yeah and a killer electricity bill.

[rebelmswar]

Death row is maximum security. Constant appeals (what do they have to lose?). Extensive medical support. Average stay over 10 years. Oh yeah and a killer electricity bill.

Don't forget that last meal can be bloody expensive.

[tony gale's mic]

Death row is maximum security. Constant appeals (what do they have to lose?). Extensive medical support. Average stay over 10 years. Oh yeah and a killer electricity bill.

Yep, it's the appeals which really do it. And if you're going to be so final as to end someone's life, it has to have more appeals than our system so that's hardly surprising.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Citing Cost, States Consider End to Death Penalty:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/us/25dea...?pagewanted=all

...

Interesting that many of the pro-hanging lot are silent in this thread...

[thenodrog]

Load of rubbish. DNA evidence can link someone to the scene of the crime and to objects but it still can't always unequivocally prove someone actually did the crime. It's 3 times more expensive to execute someone than it is to imprison them for life and US states with the death penalty have significantly higher murder rates than ones without.

Anyone who supports the death penalty is more than a little hard of thinking IMO...

OK Brains. Being as you are so easy of thinking tell me which came first in the US the chicken or the egg?

btw As for that silly 3x estimate of yours, would economies of scale not come into play?

[thenodrog]

Maybe all the formalities and legal costs are bigger than we think?

Interestingly in my Law class at college last year we had a vote, tutors included, as to whether they would bring back the death penalty or not. Everyone said "no".

Hardly a conflict of interest there is there?

ps I wonder how a vote taken by murder victims families would compare.

[tony gale's mic]

OK Brains. Being as you are so easy of thinking tell me which came first in the US the chicken or the egg?

btw As for that silly 3x estimate of yours, would economies of scale not come into play?

The chicken and the egg argument is completely irrelevant to this issue. The death penalty has been established for centuries in states which has them, there's not a chance the death penalty was introduced in response to higher crime rates as reliable statistical collection methods werent really available in those times. The death penalty has more been a case of states (and countries) repealing it rather than states or countries suddenly introducing it, although there is the odd exception. So, if the death penalty really was a deterrent, one would expect a lower murder rate in states with the death penalty.

And this isn't an estimate by myself. I don't think economies of scale are particularly significant because there's enough executions and enough of a disparity between costs to make it statistically unequivocal, let alone significant. Also one can trace the exact reasons why death penalties are so expensive.

Hardly a conflict of interest there is there?

ps I wonder how a vote taken by murder victims families would compare.

And that's another area where your logic is utterly, utterly flawed. The whole point of justice is to allow people to decide what's right or wrong, who are impartial and emotionally as removed as possible from the proceedings. While we are all sympathetic to the feelings of the families of murder victims, if we had their way there'd be some horrifically barbaric punishments doled out to murderers. That's not the way any society works, except...funnily enough...some of the more extreme Sharia Law systems. You ever thought of teaming up with them?

[thenodrog]

The chicken and the egg argument is completely irrelevant to this issue. The death penalty has been established for centuries in states which has them, there's not a chance the death penalty was introduced in response to higher crime rates as reliable statistical collection methods werent really available in those times. The death penalty has more been a case of states (and countries) repealing it rather than states or countries suddenly introducing it, although there is the odd exception. So, if the death penalty really was a deterrent, one would expect a lower murder rate in states with the death penalty.

Can you explain why death sentences have been on the rise since the very low numbers of the 1970's?

U.S. EXECUTIONS BY YEAR

1977 - 01 1985 - 18 1993 - 38 2001 - 66

1978 - 00 1986 - 18 1994 - 31 2002 - 71

1979 - 02 1987 - 25 1995 - 56 2003 - 65

1980 - 00 1988 - 11 1996 - 45 2004 - 59

1981 - 01 1989 - 16 1997 - 74 2005 - 60

1982 - 02 1990 - 23 1998 - 68 2006 - 53

1983 - 05 1991 - 14 1999 - 98 2007 - 42

1984 - 21 1992 - 31 2000 - 85 4/1/08 - 00

[tony gale's mic]

Can you explain why death sentences have been on the rise since the very low numbers of the 1970's?

U.S. EXECUTIONS BY YEAR

1977 - 01 1985 - 18 1993 - 38 2001 - 66

1978 - 00 1986 - 18 1994 - 31 2002 - 71

1979 - 02 1987 - 25 1995 - 56 2003 - 65

1980 - 00 1988 - 11 1996 - 45 2004 - 59

1981 - 01 1989 - 16 1997 - 74 2005 - 60

1982 - 02 1990 - 23 1998 - 68 2006 - 53

1983 - 05 1991 - 14 1999 - 98 2007 - 42

1984 - 21 1992 - 31 2000 - 85 4/1/08 - 00

This is the entire graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Executio...ited_States.png

So...why there was ten years where there was hardly any executions I'm not sure. I'm sure if I could be bothered I could find out. But it sure as hell doesn't fit a chicken and egg argument.

Next...

[colin]

Theno,

I'd be interested to hear why you think killing/executing people via the legal system is acceptable? Is it deterent anywhere?

Apart from a sort of gut reaction is there a logic to it?

I know that a Wikipedia search is not always the most reliable source but it has a 2005 study listing this lot

China (At least 1,770 Executions)

Iran (At least 94)

Saudi Arabia (At least 86)

United States (60)

Pakistan (31)

Yemen (24)

Vietnam (21)

Jordan (11)

Mongolia (8) INCONSISTANT

Singapore (6)

Are you OK with siding with this list?

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

Hardly a conflict of interest there is there?

ps I wonder how a vote taken by murder victims families would compare.

That logic seems a bit flawed there. A room full of people who are emotionally unattached to the subject matter are surely the best people to pass judgement as their opinions aren't clouded with retribution/hate/revenge/whatever you wish to call it. Personally, I just think that the times are changing and the death penalty is starting to be seen as barbaric.

[thenodrog]

Theno,

I'd be interested to hear why you think killing/executing people via the legal system is acceptable? Is it deterent anywhere?

Apart from a sort of gut reaction is there a logic to it?

I know that a Wikipedia search is not always the most reliable source but it has a 2005 study listing this lot

China (At least 1,770 Executions)

Iran (At least 94)

Saudi Arabia (At least 86)

United States (60)

Pakistan (31)

Yemen (24)

Vietnam (21)

Jordan (11)

Mongolia (8) INCONSISTANT

Singapore (6)

Are you OK with siding with this list?

Certainly. As long as the list is reserved for murderers and the like as highlighted throughout this thread and not for adulterors or political / religious opposition etc.

btw History will always repeat itself.

[tashor]

And that's another area where your logic is utterly, utterly flawed.

Yew R Sooooooooooo rite - an iv N.E.boddy disagreeeeeeesss I'll scweam and scweam and scweam until I'm sick

[rebelmswar]

Just curious, is it the hanging that bothers people or is it capital punishment in general?

[Tom]

Suprised the baying mob having posted Dioufs name in this thread yet

[rebelmswar]

Suprised the baying mob having posted Dioufs name in this thread yet

[tony gale's mic]

Yew R Sooooooooooo rite - an iv N.E.boddy disagreeeeeeesss I'll scweam and scweam and scweam until I'm sick

Sounds like someone couldn't handle their Friday night drink...

[tony gale's mic]

Just curious, is it the hanging that bothers people or is it capital punishment in general?

Capital punishment in general. Most modern methods are roughly comparable, although I'd say I find the electric chair particularly distateful.

[MeanGreenMachine]

I would no qualms whatsoever about putting a noose around the likes of ian huntley, the animals in the baby peter saga and those 2 lads who made another human being beg to kill him.

People talk as if these deserve human rights, but they aint, they are nothing more than animals.

What compassion did they show? How can you break a toddlers ribs, burn him and basically toture him?

Personally i think hanging is to good for them, somthing much more painful would be more deserving.

[tony gale's mic]

I would no qualms whatsoever about putting a noose around the likes of ian huntley, the animals in the baby peter saga and those 2 lads who made another human being beg to kill him.

People talk as if these deserve human rights, but they aint, they are nothing more than animals.

What compassion did they show? How can you break a toddlers ribs, burn him and basically toture him?

Personally i think hanging is to good for them, somthing much more painful would be more deserving.

That forms very little of the arguments against capital punishment.

I do think that everyone, no matter what they've done, deserves a very, very basic set of rights..but that's not why myself and many others are so opposed to capital punishment.

[MeanGreenMachine]

Why do they? Why do they deserve to be treated like that when quite obviously they dont treat another human being in the same fashion? In the baby p saga how can we justify there existence? They will get out one day with a new identity and a free ticket somewhere for there own protection. Why should we protect the guilty?

People who go out with intent on murder or serious harm and suffering loose any rights for me.

[tony gale's mic]

Why do they? Why do they deserve to be treated like that when quite obviously they dont treat another human being in the same fashion? In the baby p saga how can we justify there existence? They will get out one day with a new identity and a free ticket somewhere for there own protection. Why should we protect the guilty?

People who go out with intent on murder or serious harm and suffering loose any rights for me.

It's got very little to do with protecting those guilty of such crimes and everything to do with being part of a civilised society. If we treat these barbarians barbarically ourselves what does that make us? If we were to exert the most cruel punishments imaginable to Huntley and his ilk would that make it right just because of what he did? No one person has the right to take the life of another. For me saying that someone does is far more absurd than any of the small set of rights afforded to criminals in most civilised societies.