Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
unfortunately alot of states don't have "real life in jail" but 20 to life and the guy is out in 15-20 years because of good behavior and overcrowding. This is one of the main reasons I dont' support "life in jail" becuase it's just flat NOT life in jail in most places.This only shows that he shouldn't have been paroled; not that he should have been killed.
unfortunately alot of states don't have "real life in jail" but 20 to life and the guy is out in 15-20 years because of good behavior and overcrowding. This is one of the main reasons I dont' support "life in jail" becuase it's just flat NOT life in jail in most places.
The Death Penalty - and all forms of execution - are the most horrendous torture known to man.
I never said a thing about money being a good reason. It isn't. Preventing the death of innocent people is. The parole system is not going to change (likely because of money) but one way or another these people have to be stopped. They make a choice to kill. They need to legally deal with the consequences (especially those who torture or cause horrific suffering to victims)Hardly, in itself, a reason to execute, though. Change the parole system; don't start executing people.
We should never introduce the death penalty because keeping people in prison is too expensive. Money is never a reason to kill people.
I pretty much agree with you. It's certainly one of the worst. (I think prolonged physical torture would be worse for me, but we're all different.)
I think it's horrific, whatever someone's done.
I never said a thing about money being a good reason. It isn't. Preventing the death of innocent people is. The parole system is not going to change (likely because of money) but one way or another these people have to be stopped.
They make a choice to kill. They need to legally deal with the consequences (especially those who torture or cause horrific suffering to victims)
State sanctioned murder is wrong.
It is a barbaric act of vengeance, not justice!
I entirely agree with you. The risk of executing an innocent person makes the death penalty an utterly unacceptable practice, in my opinion.
Eazy E said:I believe that an intentional taking of a life, is very wrong. Don't know about the UK, but in the US its cheaper to keep a prison imprinsoned.
Truth be told, it's obvious the death penalty doesn't stop anyone. You can see the differences (or lack thereof) in murder rates between countries with and without the death penalty.
Does not the risk of incarcerating an innocent person make life imprisonment an utterly unacceptable practice?
Ideally, the same process of hunting for the closest thing to certainty would be carried out for those imprisoned for any considerable term.
I hardly think your argument justifies execution; it simply makes incarceration more troubling, and I am already troubled by it. That does not mean that I am not more troubled by execution.
the appeals process I think.I don't agree with the death sentence, but how exactly is it more expensive to execute them, than keep them in prison for life? I don't doubt it is more expensive as a couple of people have mentioned, but i can't work out how it is more expensive.
For those of you who think policies concerning life and death should be unaffected by concerns of cost, would you be willing to have the entire GDP of your country spent to save the life of one citizen, if that would be required to save him/her? Why not? Human life is infinitely valuable, after all.
If we gave the entire GDP of our country, it is likely that hundreds of people would die as a result. This is a specious argument.
The fact remains that killing people because it's cheaper to do so is very different from deciding not to spend money in order to save someone.
Well, whenever society spends money to save someone, it also (implicitly) decides not to spend it to save someone else. You can always find ways to spend money to save people; increase medical funding, improve security measures, raise safety requirements on goods, buy military hardware that achieves equivalent military efficiency for less manpower, etc.
I wonder how many cancer patients could be cured for the cost of one appeals process.
If all departments have a fixed budget, yes. But that would also invalidate your point about raising the certainty requirement on all longer incarcerations to that required of death sentences. From which part of the judicial system should funding be cut to pay for that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?