Oldest Death Row Inmate

[Yeager]

Yeah, one problem with that...

If the innocent man suffers in his place, then isn't the murderer free by default?  See, with the first option, you aren't entailing that any innocents are harmed.  

Let me make it really simple so that you can pick apart if need be:

Option One
Murderer is set free
Chance of killing

Option Two
Innocent man suffers in murderer's place
Murderer therefore must have been set free, as he is not suffering (assumed to be jail time)

See, option one is better than option two.

-Penguin

I do not consider a "innocent man suffering in a guilty mans place" an option because it is NOT AN OPTION.

As long as any justice system places punishment on an innocent individual then that justice system is unacceptably flawed and needs to be repaired.  No inncocent person should ever be condemned to a day, a week or life in prison, or death.  To say that it happens and is a valid reason not to execute is a chickencrap method to try and undermine the states right to act in the defense of its citizens.  Some human beings are just too damned dangerous to keep alive.

[CAP1]

Such typical mis information posted by the pro death'rs here.



Life in prison is punishment enough. Many lifers have turned their lives around and have done productive things from inside prison. No reason to kill these people.



 

i normally don't disagree with you.....but that is just crazy talk there.

free food for life. free clothes(although not much choice) for life. free medical for life. free gym for life. free cable for life. free library for life.

[CAP1]

No it isn't and not a single study has shown the cost of housing repeat offenders...especially the violent ones..."humane" execution costs more than hanging or firing squad...and the majority of costs associated with executions is the legal work to stop it...the only thing you are correct about is the added cost of keeping an inmate on death row, it's more expensive, therefore expedient execution will keep the accumulated costs down.

There's a study you probably haven't read...percentage of repeat offenders before the "humane treatment" people stepped in shouting for prison reform...it was squashed at the federal level.



As long as you have law enforcement corruption, it's going to happen. Technology is beginning to lower the incidence of erroneous convictions, especially when the judges allow the evidence to be submitted without predjudice. And yes, a free will confession does mean 100% guilty by the letter of the law...especially when the scumbag admits to the deaths of victims the police weren't even aware of and he shows them the bodies.


Tell that to the people who have lost loved ones to the violent scumbags who are still alive in a prison...we already have a prison system that is over crowded, cannot be financially maintained and rife with corruption and prisoner violence...and the answers from prison reformists is what? Higher taxes? Release non-violent offenders early?

define humane execution

[AWwrgwy]

Link one source, any single source, that definitively PROVES that any single innocent person has been executed in the 20th or 21st century in the United States, or Texas.

Definite or Reasonable Doubt?

More?

Once you're executed, possibly innocent or not, does anyone care anyway?



wrongway

[Yeager]

define humane execution

last K-9 I had put down by my vet was done in a pretty damned humane way by any standards.  Out like a light and peacefully into the long good night with a simple injection.  We ought to be able to put vicious human dogs down just as humanely.

[caldera]

Yeah, one problem with that...

If the innocent man suffers in his place, then isn't the murderer free by default?  See, with the first option, you aren't entailing that any innocents are harmed. 

Let me make it really simple so that you can pick apart if need be:

Option One
Murderer is set free
Chance of killing

Option Two
Innocent man suffers in murderer's place
Murderer therefore must have been set free, as he is not suffering (assumed to be jail time)

See, option one is better than option two.

-Penguin

You're right, set the murderers free.  They can stay at your place.

[CAP1]

last K-9 I had put down by my vet was done in a pretty damned humane way by any standards.  Out like a light and peacefully into the long good night with a simple injection.  We ought to be able to put vicious human dogs down just as humanely.

that was why i asked........the lethal injections we use on people are no where near as humane as some would have us believe.....unless i'm mis-informed.

[caldera]

Why does capital punishment need to be "humane"?  Who determines what is considered "humane" anyway?  As the legal system has found that the crime was deserved of a death penalty, how "humanely" were the victims treated by the poor, poor murderer?  A firing squad is quick, efficient and likely a much better death than his victims experienced.  Give the convicted two years to appeal, then sayonara.

[Yeager]

Definite or Reasonable Doubt?

More?

Once you're executed, possibly innocent or not, does anyone care anyway?



wrongway

Really?

Link 1, and I quote: "There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent."  

Link 2: The New Yorker comes along and tells us someone name Cameron Todd Willingham was wrongly executed.  Ok.....so says the New Yorker.  Im a man of Justice and if a Jury of his peers found him guilty then they had better be damned sure about it. No doubts.  Thats all I can say.  If a man is wrongly executed then it is imperative that the entire system of justice be strengthened, not weakened.  No innoccent man should be allowed to be found guilty.  That is the goal.  Not removing the States Right to act in defense of its citizens.

If the justice system executed an innocent man, then fix that system.  Those people within that justice system need to be held accountable for it.

[Tango]

Then let those guys spend the rest of their lives locked up. Talk to some people who have spent time in federal prison, spending the rest of your life in there may be a worse punishment than death.

Life in prison is cheaper than putting someone to death. There is plenty of research already done on the matter, and it is not entirely for the reasons other posters have said. The research is out there for you if you are really interested in knowing the facts.

And true, it is still not cheaper than a '20 cent slug', but I'm sure glad our country does not have a justice system like that.

The original post shows that keeping them alive only puts more innocent people at risk if/when they escape.

As for executions costing more than keeping them alive, the French had it right in the late 1700's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine
I KNOW that is far cheaper than kepping them alive and is quick andpainless.

[RightF00T]

It's ironic that I'm reading "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham right now...the story is enough to make you angry the whole time.  Of course this is the exception, but it outlines clearly why knee-jerk capital punishment is a disservice to justice.

[Penguin]

I do not consider a "innocent man suffering in a guilty mans place" an option because it is NOT AN OPTION.

As long as any justice system places punishment on an innocent individual then that justice system is unacceptably flawed and needs to be repaired.  No inncocent person should ever be condemned to a day, a week or life in prison, or death.  To say that it happens and is a valid reason not to execute is a chickencrap method to try and undermine the states right to act in the defense of its citizens.  Some human beings are just too damned dangerous to keep alive.

Wait, the post that I responded to was using those two as options.  I outlined what the problem was, and outlined how Option 1 is better.  Re-read the post, I think that you made an honest mistake in looking at the two numbers.  Nothing wrong, just want to make it clear as to what you are saying.

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Wait, the post that I responded to was using those two as options.  I outlined what the problem was, and outlined how Option 1 is better.  Re-read the post, I think that you made an honest mistake in looking at the two numbers.  Nothing wrong, just want to make it clear as to what you are saying.

-Penguin

ok. the clerk at the corner store just got murdered. someone saw your dad come out of that store only an hour beforehand. he gets arrested, and convicted. now he's on deathrow, appealing. all the while, the murderer is out running around.

how is that better?

[Penguin]

Are you being thick on purpose?  Geez man...

Situation One
Innocent walks, murderer walks

Situation Two
Innocent suffers, murderer walks

In either case, the murder walks free as a bird, so you want to make the innocent man safe. 

Ok, well then you want situation one to happen, the murderer runs but my dad is also free.  It seems like you just aren't getting it at all.  I want Option One to happen.  Also, the choice is a double bind, either option is bad, and one must choose the lesser evil. 

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Are you being thick on purpose?  Geez man...

Situation One
Innocent walks, murderer walks

Situation Two
Innocent suffers, murderer walks

In either case, the murder walks free as a bird, so you want to make the innocent man safe. 

Ok, well then you want situation one to happen, the murderer runs but my dad is also free.  It seems like you just aren't getting it at all.  I want Option One to happen.  Also, the choice is a double bind, either option is bad, and one must choose the lesser evil. 

-Penguin

View Profile Personal Message (Online)
   
   
Re: Oldest Death Row Inmate
« Reply #28 on: Today at 11:41:10 AM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: Yeager on Today at 10:38:45 AM
did you read that on the back of a box of captain crunch cereal?  Link one source, any single source, that definitively PROVES that any single innocent person has been executed in the 20th or 21st century in the United States, or Texas.

Some people say that it is better for a man guilty of murder to be set free rather than to have an innocent man suffer in his place.  I disagree in this respect: No man guilty of murder should ever be set free.  There exist in this world evil human beings that must be killed to defend the larger value of life.

Yeah, one problem with that...

If the innocent man suffers in his place, then isn't the murderer free by default?  See, with the first option, you aren't entailing that any innocents are harmed.

Let me make it really simple so that you can pick apart if need be:

Option One
Murderer is set free
Chance of killing

Option Two
Innocent man suffers in murderer's place
Murderer therefore must have been set free, as he is not suffering (assumed to be jail time)

See, option one is better than option two.

-Penguin


there is your exact post.

 and there is no reason for sa murder to be set free.