Question for the death penalty abolitionists among us.

[Firestormalpha]

Hmmm... getting rid of the death penalty is fine with me. But I also think that state funding of prisons should be reduced. No more five star meals for the inmates, no more cable TV for the inmates. Give them all antennas for all I care, cable is too expensive to waste on criminals. The way things work now criminals in prison make more money than mid-level workers.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Firestormalpha: Hmmm... getting rid of the death penalty is fine with me. But I also think that state funding of prisons should be reduced. No more five star meals for the inmates, no more cable TV for the inmates. Give them all antennas for all I care, cable is too expensive to waste on criminals. The way things work now criminals in prison make more money than mid-level workers.

Erm......

I don't have statistics on what criminal make in terms of income for making licnse plates, etc., but I think they only get perks in prison or a less-that-minimum wage amount. And, I note that ANY prison is funded by tax dollars. I do agree, of course, that prisons should be horrible, and should not be a place where the wrongdoers can find some solace in cable TV.

[Firestormalpha]

Sorry for not being clear TL. I meant to say that they tend to get more perks than a middle class citizen, of which there are many, I think, in the U.S.

Basically I believe that Alcatraz pretty much had it figured out. 6 days out of the week all you did was get up and eat, do 8 hours of work, then sit around bored in your cell. then on Sundays you got the priveledge of walking the prison yard for a couple hours and you didn't have to work. As far as I know you didn't get paid for the work you did either.

No doubt some will find flaws in that system. But most of them are a psyche issue.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Firestormalpha: Sorry for not being clear TL. I meant to say that they tend to get more perks than a middle class citizen, of which there are many, I think, in the U.S. Basically I believe that Alcatraz pretty much had it figured out. 6 days out of the week all you did was get up and eat, do 8 hours of work, then sit around bored in your cell. then on Sundays you got the priveledge of walking the prison yard for a couple hours and you didn't have to work. As far as I know you didn't get paid for the work you did either. No doubt some will find flaws in that system. But most of them are a psyche issue.

Hey, no worries, I've done all the tours at Alcatraz (while my wife was working for the DOJ in S.F.) and I agree. But, remember, Alcatraz was a "secondary" prison, meaning you only went there if you were a miscreant at a normal federal prison.

[ 11-07-2003, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Azimaith]

I would assume this is hypothetical because its never going to be that. In my opinion, no, because prisoners suffer much more if they waste away in prison than if they are given the special treatments from the death penalty. I say, if this person is 100% absolutely guilty, let them rot in prison with absolutely no change for parol.

[Azimaith]

Originally posted by Zero Alpha: im against the death penalty. the crime it is currently used for is the taking of a life right? well i dont see how the taking of a life changes if it is done to someone elce. therefore anyone who implements the death penalty has simply commited the same crime as the accused. except we KNOW 100% that the executor commited the crime. even if we could prove the accused 100% guilty, it wouldnt make a difference. two wrongs do not make a right. (but three lefts do . cant remember where that came from .)

Guess what, having someone in prison for 80 years doesn't change what they did either, maybe we should just absolve all the prisons and spend all that money to work on learning to ressurect the dead. I hope you see the sarcasm here.

By the way, two wrongs for the right reason do make a right. If you want me to explain it I will, but for now, I'll spare everyone my intensely tedius posts on this.

[JrKASperov]

ACtually, concerning the death penalty, there is a blinding degree of how bad a punishment is. Death penalty is FAR LESS bad as life impisonment? Why? Cause you suffer your whole LIFE from life imprisonment, and you only suffer a minute moment from death penalty. Also, people tend to underestimate the hardness of even 1 year in prison, I have talked to a former inmate or two, and they think it's HELL, even in a relatively MILD prison like here in Holland. It is simple HELL that you are taken away all your freedom to only spend 1 hour a day outside in a CAGE while the rest of the day, you are either asleep or bored in your own cellroom.

Basically, I am against death penalty cause it's not that a severe penalty. It might seem for the bystanders, but for the criminal, it is far from a bad punishment.

[lethoso]

Main issue I have with the death penalty is that sentencing is inequitable. Why should one murderer live whilst another is killed for the same crime? Whatever the motive they still killed a person.

[Zuvio]

Death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous(sp?) of crimes, or the manic criminals: those who keep returning to the dark-side. I mean, some of the stories I hear on discovery channel, of what some people are capable of doing to other human beings or even children(!), I feel much better when their sick minds are put out of commission. If you shoot a man point blank for a stupid reason, you need to be rehabilitated and imprisoned, but if you do things I will not name here to a kid, you need to be put to sleep..... forever. Common sense and wisdom is what we need. Ethics, general law & order.

[Gnarf]

I'd be against death penality no matter what. There's no point to it. Simple as that. If you've killed someone, you can't "make it right," whoever you killed will stay dead no matter what. It doesn't make a difference to me wether a mass murderer is locked away for the rest of his/her life or killed off, it's not like he/she will be able to do anything to anyone either way, so why should I bother? I'm quite sure it makes quite the difference to the mass murderer, so let him/her decide.

The problem is one of symmetry. If someone can't kill, the state can't kill, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Well, if someone can't imprison, the state can't imprison, because two wrongs don't make a right. Or, remove the symmetry, and you get the completely bogus-sounding: if somone can't kill, it is wrong to imprison for killing, because two wrongs don't make a right. Remove the symmetry, and the logical flaws of this argument become glaring.

I don't think anyone should imprison or kill. So no, I don't we should imprison for killing. I think that killing is worse than imprisoning though, so I do think we should imprison to prevent killing.