Texas death row inmate plucks out eye, eats it

[mox 298]

Isn't it actually cheaper keeping people in detention, rather than Death Row (complete with umpteen appeals)?

Yep, far more expensive.

[Danno 1,228]

Isn't it actually cheaper keeping people in detention, rather than Death Row (complete with umpteen appeals)?

Yep, far more expensive.

I see my motion to "fast track" these executions is building steam.

Who says my time here is a waste?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess all those Death Row people released on appeal because of unsafe convictions can take heart from the fact that because the system is now being "fast tracked" that they won't spend years in prison awaiting execution before they are exonerated

[Danno 1,228]

When people stand accused of a crime, justice should be served.

That is why I am for the Death Penalty.

We should not fail in this duty, we are better than that ...or we should be

(thanks for that line MOX)

Edited January 12, 2009 by Danno

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When people stand accused of a crime, justice should be served.

That is why I am for the Death Penalty.

We should not fail in this duty, we are better than that ...or we should be

(thanks for that line MOX)

So... in effect what you are saying is that anyone accused of a crime should be executed.

[mox 298]

Isn't it actually cheaper keeping people in detention, rather than Death Row (complete with umpteen appeals)?

Yep, far more expensive.

I see my motion to "fast track" these executions is building steam.

Who says my time here is a waste?

Not exactly what I had in mind.

When people stand accused of a crime, justice should be served.

That is why I am for the Death Penalty.

We should not fail in this duty, we are better than that ...or we should be

(thanks for that line MOX)

Also not what I had in mind.

This is why I prefer the moral argument against the death penalty, rather than the "our implementation is flawed" argument. From a societal standpoint, there's no difference between somebody being locked away for the rest of their life, and somebody who is murdered by the State. In both cases, the person has been removed from society forever. Therefore the only real argument should be about the morality of murdering somebody as the penalty for murder, and understanding that because life incarceration accomplishes the same goal, revenge can be the only motivator for the death penalty. And so I say again, we are above petty revenge, or at least we should be.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I don't think anyone is absolutely "pro-death penalty." I'm sure everyone here would prefer that these criminal acts didn't occur. Unfortunately, the death penalty is sometimes required.

While it's true the death penalty fails as a preventive measure (very few think of the consequences for their actions before committing murder), I see it as an end-all solution for those repeated offenders who cannot be rehabilitated into society. It's a shame that has to happen, but it's worse to allow the murder of innocent people.

As for the death penalty being the same as murder, I can't say I agree. The death penalty is, at worst, an act of homicide. Not all homicidal actions are murder; however, all murder is, in fact, homicide. If some murders another individual, that action is, by definition homicide (the killing of another person). However, it is not a murderous act to defend yourself or when killing another during war. Is that still homicide? Strictly speaking, yes it is. But the ramifications for such is vastly different. I believe the death penalty is relatively the same -- it is not murder.

[mox 298]

I don't think anyone is absolutely "pro-death penalty." I'm sure everyone here would prefer that these criminal acts didn't occur. Unfortunately, the death penalty is sometimes required.

When compared to life in prison, how exactly is the death penalty sometimes required? What does the death penalty accomplish that life in prison would not? As you already mentioned, it's not a deterrent. It's also not a rehabilitative measure.

While it's true the death penalty fails as a preventive measure (very few think of the consequences for their actions before committing murder), I see it as an end-all solution for those repeated offenders who cannot be rehabilitated into society. It's a shame that has to happen, but it's worse to allow the murder of innocent people.

You kinda went in a circle here. You admit that it fails as a preventative measure, but then you end with "it's a shame that it has to happen, but it's worse to allow the murder of innocent people." As if to say that allowing the death penalty prevents the murder of innocent people.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Because life imprisonment doesn't always mean such. Sometimes a prison sentence (even one that's supposed to be for life) can be interrupted by the allowance of parole. While this isn't usual, it can happen.

I should have clarified my other statement. As I've already mentioned, the preventative idea behind the death penalty is, in general, a complete failure. However, the reason it can save innocent lives is making sure the criminal in question is never released (which can occur regardless of the prison sentence).

[mox 298]

Because life imprisonment doesn't always mean such. Sometimes a prison sentence (even one that's supposed to be for life) can be interrupted by the allowance of parole. While this isn't usual, it can happen.

Yes, certainly the other side of the coin needs to be "life in prison means you live out the rest of your natural life under incarceration, period end of discussion." Judges are starting to hand out more "life without parole" sentences, but if any steam is going to be generated for the anti-DP movement, it needs to be shown that judges are 100% serious about throwing away the key for the worst offenses.

I should have clarified my other statement. As I've already mentioned, the preventative idea behind the death penalty is, in general, a complete failure. However, the reason it can save innocent lives is making sure the criminal in question is never released (which can occur regardless of the prison sentence).

Gotcha.

[Ban Hammer 12,837]

Because life imprisonment doesn't always mean such. Sometimes a prison sentence (even one that's supposed to be for life) can be interrupted by the allowance of parole. While this isn't usual, it can happen.

I should have clarified my other statement. As I've already mentioned, the preventative idea behind the death penalty is, in general, a complete failure. However, the reason it can save innocent lives is making sure the criminal in question is never released (which can occur regardless of the prison sentence).

statistics show that not one executed criminal has gone on to kill again.