Wednesday, September 21, 2005

capital punishment (part 2)

it's about economics. i don't want my money being spent keeping a murderer alive. kill them and save us some money

first of all, it is a fact that the cost of putting someone to death far exceeds the cost of keeping them imprisoned for life. on average the over-all cost of a single case of capital punishment is $3.2 million. on the otherhand, the over-all cost of keeping someone imprisoned for life is $600 thousand, less than one-fifth the cost of the former.

thats hogwash! give me a few bucks and i'll buy some shells or a few yards of rope and i'll do the deed for much less.

it's reality. wake up and accept it. capital punishment includes certain guaranteed appeals and processes that end up being quite costly. these are necessary to ensure that the innocent are not wrongly killed (a process that is very problematic and proven faulty).

lets take a trip and ride the trolley to the land of make-believe. along with king friday and lady platypus, we can pretend that it is much more cost efficient to kill someone off than to imprison them for life. by justifying the death of another to save money, you are becoming no different than many of those you are putting to death (a theme i'll elaborate on even more later). you are placing a dollar sign over a human life and killing that person for your own personal gain. you are killing someone so that you can have more money. like cain, you are becoming master mahan - holding the great secret - the secret of exchanging human life for money.

it deters crime.

there is no evidence whatsoever that such is the case. less than 11% of criminologists believe that capital punishment has any effect on the decision process of killing another person and that whatever effect it does have is quite minimal. furthermore studies have shown that states and nations which have dropped capital punishment have actually had a decrees in violent crimes and vice-versa, that states and nations which have reinstituted the death penalty have seen a subsequent rise in violent crimes.

they killed once. they might kill again!

might? so now we are going to punish someone for crimes they might commit? i'll give the benefit of the doubt that someone who has killed before is more likely to kill again than someone who has never killed before. this however does not answer the criticism that capital punishment as an eliminator of future crimes is a punishment imposed on crimes not committed. if we are going to begin punishing people for crimes which they might committ, where does the line stop? how do you know if someone is going to kill again? why not kill anyone who might kill someday? who can claim sanctuary from the possibility of someday becoming a killer? kill to prevent killing. does that not sound problematic to you?


to be continued tomorrow...

3 comments:

  1. it's about economics. i don't want my money being spent keeping a murderer alive. kill them and save us some money

    when stated like that, I have to agree with Loyd. However, I think we should buy a REALLY nice island in the pacific somewhere and just drop off the prisoners there and let them fend for themselves. History has proven that it's possible to create a decent nation (australia) from such an idea. That way, they wouldn't be eating up anymore of the taxpayers money. Other than the cost of shipping them to the island.

    first of all, it is a fact that the cost of putting someone to death far exceeds the cost of keeping them imprisoned for life. on average the over-all cost of a single case of capital punishment is $3.2 million. on the otherhand, the over-all cost of keeping someone imprisoned for life is $600 thousand, less than one-fifth the cost of the former.

    think CHINA here ....


    it's reality. wake up and accept it. capital punishment includes certain guaranteed appeals and processes that end up being quite costly. these are necessary to ensure that the innocent are not wrongly killed (a process that is very problematic and proven faulty).

    Which is why we should give serious thought to buying an island for these people. Or better yet, do what Fidal Castro is doing. Put all the criminals on a boat and aim it at Cuba. If it makes landfall then Cuba can deal with them. If it's turned around and given back to us, then we can stick them in prison and try again next month.

    lets take a trip and ride the trolley to the land of make-believe. along with king friday and lady platypus, we can pretend that it is much more cost efficient to kill someone off than to imprison them for life. wow ... someone sounds arrogant and egotistile there by justifying the death of another to save money, you are becoming no different than many of those you are putting to death (a theme i'll elaborate on even more later). you are placing a dollar sign over a human life and killing that person for your own personal gain.

    Could it not also be argued that the money used to support a "killer / rapist / pedophile", instead of for personal gain, be used to strengthen our great nation? fund schools, job training programs, ESL classes, etc. ????

    less than 11% of criminologists believe that capital punishment has any effect on the decision process of killing another person and that whatever effect it does have is quite minimal. furthermore studies have shown that states and nations which have dropped capital punishment have actually had a decrees in violent crimes and vice-versa, that states and nations which have reinstituted the death penalty have seen a subsequent rise in violent crimes.

    it's also fact that there is NO KNOWN "therapy" that helps "cure" this problem either. No amount of counceling, or "talking and understanding them" has curbed this either.

    might? so now we are going to punish someone for crimes they might commit? i'll give the benefit of the doubt that someone who has killed before is more likely to kill again than someone who has never killed before. this however does not answer the criticism that capital punishment as an eliminator of future crimes is a punishment imposed on crimes not committed. if we are going to begin punishing people for crimes which they might committ, where does the line stop? how do you know if someone is going to kill again? why not kill anyone who might kill someday? who can claim sanctuary from the possibility of someday becoming a killer? kill to prevent killing. does that not sound problematic to you?

    To that extent, yes it's problematic. However, lets look at terrorist for a second. I remember one day some terrorist flew planes into a couple of tall buildings in New York, one crashed into a field in PN, and one hit the pentagon. However, that was a couple years ago, we have no proof that any terrorist are ever going to do anything to us ever again, so lets drop the whole military all together, cause unless someone is activly attacking us, what really is the point of having a military? I mean, the military is meant to defend and if no one is directly attacking us then it's pointless. However, if someone does attack us, the moment that attack is in the past then there is no proof that they will ever do it again, so lets just sit back and not worry about what was done. Just b/c they "might" do it again is no reason to be proactive. Especially when some guy in the neighborhood molest a child. I mean, there is no solid proof he's going to do it again, so we shouldn't hold his past against him. We should let him do whatever he wants cause we should we take precautions against what "might" happen. There is no proof that it will ... so what prepare for it???

    ~ryan

    ReplyDelete
  2. In spite of the fact that a lot of Americans are, in my opinion, overly fearful of things like terrorist attacks and violent crime (mainly the fantasy sort they see on TV), there is no disputing that our country can cheefully scream "We're Number 1!" when it comes to murders, assaults, property crimes and all manner of other anti-social behaviors. There really does seem to be something in the water here.

    That said, most people--like my father--can honestly get very defensive about characterizations of America as "violent" when made by Europeans and Asians. They see political cartoons with Israeli mothers cautioning their children boarding planes for a trip to NYC to "be careful--it's a violent country you're going to" as evidence that the rest of the world "hate" us or "only wish they had what we had," etc.

    People like my father have never known anyone who has been murdered or injured in any way in a serious crime. They view crime as something that happens "someplace else" to "other people." So the idea of spending hard-earned tax dollars to clean up after these "other people" isn't appealing.

    But I don't think this debate has much to do with that supposed "other" violent America. No, when the death penalty is discussed it is usually cases where "people who 'shouldn't have been killed'" have been killed.

    It's like how the police are often accused of dismissing gang warfare or organized crime by saying, "Well, as long as they're only killing each other--saves the taxpayers' money, if you ask me."

    So it is mainly cases where "nice" people from "safe" America are killed that result in the death penalty being handed out. (In this sense I have do disagree a bit with our narrator on the 'future crimes' theory--is Scott Peterson ever likely again to marry a woman, get her pregnant and then kill her & their unborn child?)

    I dislike this use of the death penalty (and you must admit--isn't that where it's mainly used?) to keep the wall of separation between "safe" America and "violent" America secure. As a country, even those of us who live in "safe" America should be appalled by the statistics, which are not double or triple but DOZENS of times what they are in other "First World" countries.

    In my opinion, the Death Penalty is a way for "safe" America to sit back contentedly without ever having to face (and fix) what it is about this country that leads to so many murders, burglaries, assaults, rapes, etc. year after year after year.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Silent Observer9/24/2005 1:46 PM

    I think the death penalty makes more sense from an atonement point of view. It's more of an eye-for-an-eye thing than any other reason.

    Surely murder is worst offense in our society, so those guilty of it should pay for it with their own lives.

    Life in prison probably comes pretty close to the death penalty, so I'd be in favor of those tent cities in the middle of the desert for life. Same difference.

    ReplyDelete

Please provide a name or consistent pseudonym with your comments and avoid insults or personal attacks against anyone or any group. All anonymous comments will be immediately deleted. Other comments are subject to deletion at my discretion.