|
Republican legislators in my increasingly hosed up state want to bring back the death penalty. They are all dumb and evil and I hate them, but lets go into why the death penalty is hosed up and lovely. 1). It's Expensive! Why, if they're in jail for less time, is it more expensive to put someone on death row? Court costs. Death penalty cases generally take longer and cost more than non-death penalty cases, and the appeals process increases the cost difference between the two. 2). It's unfair! The death penalty is given to minorities more often than it is given to white people, often because white people tend to be richer and richer people can afford better attorneys and better attorneys know how to keep people off death row. 3). It's not a deterrent! There's absolutely no evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrent against committing capital offenses, and in fact the murder rate in states without the death penalty tends to be lower than in states with the death penalty. 4). States keep getting sued because of it! Nebraska and Texas have both been sued because they bought or attempted to buy the drugs used in lethal injection from unnamed, often shady sources, and the most recent cases brought to the Supreme Court have been because the drugs they use 5). We are literally the only country in America (North and South) or Europe that executes people! Except Belarus but gently caress them. We're behind only China, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in number of executions and we don't want to be like those countries now do we? 6). Public Opinion of it is dropping! At one point, a little over 20 years ago, 80% of America was in favor of the death penalty. That's dropped to 60% as of this year, which is as low as it has been since Nixon was in office. 7). Innocent people might die! There are plenty of cases of new evidence being found that exonerates people sitting on death row, and there are a small number of instances where there was evidence that could have exonerated someone who was executed by the state. I repeat: HOLY loving poo poo THE STATE KILLED PEOPLE FOR A CRIME THEY DID NOT COMMIT THAT IS hosed UP 8). Jesus loving Christ We Should Not Kill People In The Name Of Justice. Jesus loving Christ we should not kill people in the name of justice. 9). Seriously "Thou Shall Not Kill" Is In The 10 loving Commandments Jesus would totally not be in favor of the death penalty, especially considering his entire life and work. gently caress you, Iowa Republicans, keep your lovely justice by murder fetish out of my state.
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
Calibanibal posted:The problem is the attempts to deritualize it and decommunalize it. Executions were an important and exciting part of traditional community life and they brought people together in fear and hate and thirst for violent retribution. Put the death penalty back in the public square where it belongs ok George Carlin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:You can't guillotine the rich if the death penalty is banned. Checkmate, liberals. counterpoint: rich people can afford better lawyers than poor people, which means that the death penalty affects the poor at a greater rate than the rich. therefore the death penalty achieves the opposite of your goal if your goal is "kill the rich"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
For those who haven't already, I'd recommend you all to read Ultimate Punishment by Scott Turow. It's a great account from a lawyer about his time on a commission that investigated the death penalty in Illinois in the early 2000s and has a very clear-eyed view of all of the pro- and anti-death penalty arguments. (I'll give you a hint of how he feels: after reading the commission's report, the governor of Illinois commuted the death sentences of everyone on death row in Illinois to life in prison and put a moratorium on further death sentences.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:*They will not re-offend I'm not entirely sure how these two fit together. In your view, if they think life in jail is worse, then wouldn't they deserve *that* instead? Also, DoggPickle posted:Can we admit that 99% of people on death row loving DID IT? I was laughing at an earlier post that suggested we have some kind of higher standard than "beyond all reasonable doubt", like "holy poo poo, he is TOTALLY SUPER-DUPER guilty", and I don't actually see why we can't add a separate standard of guilt into our court system, where the Jury can choose the GUILTY AS gently caress option. We're trusting juries to decide guilt or innocence. Can't we trust them to decide if someone's case is "whishy-washy but we're pretty sure it's true" or "he's so obviously a creepy murderer that we are literally scared to sit here". Obviously anyone on death row who is not innocent "did it", but it's a matter of being able to tell which are innocent and not. There's no set number of innocent people in prison at any given time, so you can't say "well these 10 people are innocent so everyone else did it." Also, technically "guilty" would be the option you're referring to because "whishy-washy but we're pretty sure it's true" is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and thus, would be "not guilty" (if every jury were impartial and followed rules perfectly). edit: and yet there are still people who are declared guilty who aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Arkansas is holding Death-a-Palooza in April!quote:Eight inmates are to be executed over the next 10 days in the state of Arkansas. The pace of executions, which is unprecedented in recent U.S. history, has been brought about by the looming expiration date of the drug the state uses for lethal injections. The last couple paragraphs also lead into another question I've had about the death penalty: Is the current cocktail of drugs really the most effective method of killing people? Why not just load them with enough Fentanyl to stop a rhino? Obviously the current cocktail (or cocktails, I guess, since there are different ones in different places) is not perfect since it can and does cause pain during the process, which is what the midazolam is supposedly used to stop.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I mean, the most humane is not killing people at all. well the most humane is full communism now but baby steps means that maybe the person we kill have one brief moment of solace before their death
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
stone cold posted:......or we could not have the state kill people? No poo poo dummy, but since short of Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts coming to the light and going against their entire judicial history and deciding that the death penalty is, in fact, unconstitutional or every single AG in the country waking up and deciding they're gonna stop being shitheads, that's not gonna happen any time soon.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
stone cold posted:So ,if you're gonna be all nihilist about it, what's the point of this thread? Well, with Republicans infesting an even greater portion of our government, national, state and local, they're attempting blatant grabs of power that include further use of the death penalty that strikes me as grotesque, while the public opinion slowly trends away from it. There are two separate things going on: whether or not the death penalty is good, and how it's actually being applied in this country. the particular cocktail that's in use straddles both of those lines, but it's a far more likely change to happen in the near term than complete destruction of the death penalty (which should be the end goal).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Arkansas' DEATH-A-PALOOZA has been canceled because, get this, killing 8 people in 10 days because your (really risky, potentially inhumane and/or ill-gotten) murder drugs are about to expire flies in the face of the 8th amendment and human decency.quote:When Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson announced that the state would execute eight death row inmates between April 17 and April 27 — an unprecedented rush — it was because Arkansas’ supply of midazolam expires at the end of the month. The state did not think it could procure more, since most manufacturers have started refusing to allow their drugs to be used in executions. So, lets go through the "terrible ideas checklist" to make sure this is, in fact, a terrible idea: 1. Arkansas, a state that has not executed anyone in 12 years, is about to execute 8 people in 10 days. 2. They did not execute people because they did not have the means, so to fix that problem, they just lied (lies of omission are still lies motherfuckers) to the manufacturers, who are now pissed that their drugs are going to be used to kill people. 3. multiple people set to be executed have mental disabilities. 4. the only reason they're set to happen so quickly is because the drugs are set to expire and god forbid these people just remain on death row where they will be doing no harm to anyone that they are not already doing with their mere existence on this earth 10/10 terrible idea way to go Arkansas you're really living up to the last 75% of your name
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
would you like to hear a story about Marcel Williams, the second execution on the docket tonight in Arkansas? https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856672527854260225 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856672900673413122 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856672998291640320 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856673192886272000 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856673320078635009 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856674056292233216 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856674382063828992 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856674742027288576 Remember folks: https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856658585652211713
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I've always thought this was an odd argument, because it applies equally to any application of deadly force by the state in pursuit of its objectives. The argument only works if you don't think imposing criminal sanctions is a legitimate purpose of government. if the death penalty were literally the only penalty for crime then this might make sense but there's an entire range of punishments for crime that do not involve deadly force. what is the difference between life in prison and death that the latter is so much better than the former that we should do it, period? Why is death a punishment that fits certain crimes that life in prison does not? And does the government actually applies those two penalties based on severity of crime? I'll give you a hint to that last one, it's "gently caress no". People in favor of the death penalty should have to advocate for why putting someone to death is a punishment that would be effective in a way that life in prison is not. It's not a deterrent, it's not cheaper, so what is the point? In short: Dead Reckoning posted:It's not revenge, it's retribution, which is an entirely legitimate purpose of the justice system. If someone commits a wrong act, and offers no likelihood of rehabilitation, has no means of restitution, and for whatever reason incapacitation or deterrence are unlikely to be achieved by penalizing them, it is still entirely correct that they be punished. Punishing bad behavior is a matter of justice even if the punishment serves no ancillary purpose. I know this isn't universally agreed on though. When is this ever a thing? in what situation does someone commit a crime that putting them in prison for life is not adequate?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I was answering philosophical questions, not practical ones, because that's how the argument was framed. The questions at issue were, "is it legitimate to use deadly force to achieve government ends when there is a statistical certainty that eventually an innocent person will be killed" and "is retribution a valid goal of the justice system", both of which I answer in the affirmative. Whether life in prison is an equally effective incapacitation/deterrent is irrelevant to the question of whether a death sentence is ever justified, unless you're already presupposing that A) retribution isn't a legitimate goal of the justice system, and B) the government is obliged to impose the least harmful punishment that achieves whatever it is that you deem legitimate ends. what criteria is there that the death penalty fulfills more than life in prison? And does that criteria outweigh the potential for error (not just in executing innocents, but also the bias towards executing minorities, men, and poor people)?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:But basically everything the justice system does has a bias towards disproportionally hurting those groups. It's even more pronounced when you look at people sentenced to death. https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/857717418738823168
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 23:25
|
|