Life Sentence vs. Capital Punishment

There is population control. Keeps us from having too many prisoners in jails or having to make a new jail.

That idea is as bad Virginia's new bill about abortion.

There are 2,019,234 prisoners in the United States alone. Thats 715 per 10,000 people. The majority of them are minor drug offenses. If "prison population" is becoming a problem, maybe we should look into alternative methods or even re-evaluating the policies that are leading to the exploding prison population. *Cough* War on Drugs *Cough*

Source
Source 2

[font=verdana][color=green]So, are you saying that without capital punishment, the level of proof required to find the defendant guilty is lower? That's a highly sketchy and rather idealistic approach there.

Overall, the capital punishment has repeatedly been shown to be ineffective and lacks deterrent. You either have people that kill on purpose (hoping that they won't be caught) people that kill in the heat of the moment (not having much regard for the law at the time) or people that kill in self-defence (which are shielded by the law). None of these are specifically affected by life sentence or capital punishment - just the punishment itself.

...FPoD it's not my job to repost what I already wrote.

But since you clearly felt like reading a cohesive and researched argument is too much work, and couldn't even take the time to read the TL;DR part, I'll put this in simpler terms:

1. The Death penalty causes a statistically significantly higher exoneration rate among people who receive it. (DP=2.07%, Life = .188(accounting for non death penalty cases specifically assigned life imprisonment)

2. The reason for this is an interesting rejoinder to the idea that it's 'too expensive' because the reason the Death Penalty is so expensive is the ungodly amount of hours spent examining, re examining, and appealing the case over and over, to be AS SURE AS POSSIBLE that this person is guilty of the crime.

3. There are examples of people getting off SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE their cases were examined thoroughly, and they were examined as such specifically because the case file ordered a death penalty.

And if you had bothered at all to read my post, you'd know all this already. Instead you make me repeat myself, because...I don't know, I guess you're just a douche like that.

Allow me to repeat myself...AGAIN. I have several reasons to be against the death penalty(it's racist in application, woefully expensive, and the dehumanizing process of strapping an unwilling participant to be injected with lethal chemicals) and for the most part I agree with the anti-side, but this is a crucial argument that needs to be addressed. The "Innocence" argument some people espouse(that one might kill innocent people) is not only statistically unfounded, but can be turned around in favor of the death penalty, as I did.

This. Also: I too was reflecting on this subject just a while back.

[color=#2e1a6b]You could phrase it that way if you want. I think I higher punishment deserves a higher certainty of guilt.

Personally, I feel slightly guilty if a person does do a crime such as murder, but then they start feeling guilty about it. But they did that in the first place, and what they did cannot be taken back. I'm not really into the idea of stealing a person's life away, but if that's what needs to be done, let it be.

The punishment should mimic the crime. I genuinely believe that the rapists should be in turn raped, the knifers knifed, the swindlers made destitute, the ones who commit obscure crimes that are hard to mirror (like perjury) imprisoned. Most people give me funny looks when I say that.

You wasted both your time and mine by regurgitating your post without actually answering the question. I guess you're just a douche like that.

I didn't ask why you opposed the death penalty. Since you were quoting Von Der Haag, I asked what other benefits does society gain from having a death penalty? The only answer you gave was from "higher exoneration rate". The death penalty is not more cost effective as it ties up resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Statistically the "derrent" factor has been proven to be bunk as well. If there is no other tangible benefit for society, the cons of such a policy far outweigh the pro's.

[font=verdana][color=green]You misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, is that your approach insinuates that normal murder cases don't have a high level of evidence and certainty requirement, where in fact they do. Many people have said that argument in the past "Oh, if we are 100% sure that they are guilty, we should use Capital Punishment", but... all that says is is that you believe that current murder cases don't have 100% certainty, which is not the case.

Many people have been incarcerated with the belief that they were guilty, but many cases have had new evidence bought to light and they were found to be innocent people. With capital punishment, that possibility could never exist.

[color=#2e1a6b]I'm confused, it looks like you're saying that current murder cases have 100% certainty. Maybe you meant that the cases claim to have 100% proof when they really don't?

[font=verdana][color=green]When you find someone guilty of murder, you are saying that, beyond reasonable doubt, this person is guilty of murder. That means being 100% certain that they are guilty of murder. However, many times in the case law, decisions have been overturned due to new evidence coming to light that wasn't available at the time of the trial. So, they are let free and pardoned - as well as compensated I'm sure. With Capital Punishment, that isn't possible. That person would be dead and there would be nothing that the courts could do about it - they would have died an innocent person. That is simply too big a risk to take.

[color=#2e1a6b]If I'm understanding you right, your saying that it's impossible to be certain that someone is guilty (due to new evidence arising), so we shouldn't use capital punishment.

Biglundi already posted the statistics about this, so no need to repeat them

[font=verdana][color=green]In a simplification, yes. But, I'm also saying that having "higher levels of guilt" for murder cases i.e. a scaling level of guilt for murder cases, is dangerous and idealistic.

I'm just saying it in a way that other people will be able to read coherently and easily. Whilst those statistics were nice, not many people will read them due to sheer size.

I can't stress enough with words how morally bankrupt capital punishment is.
The profiling on which cases go for death row... ~99% men, majority of which are poor, and/or mentally disabled(from Texas with <3).
The humongous fiscal costs, US cheapest death row(Texas) costs 2.3M per case, that's three times the cost of 40 years imprisonment at maximum security.
The inefficiency behind it's "purpose" as someone proved before(states with death penalty do not have lower murder rates than states that don't)
Even if I believed that death could bring any form of closure(I don't)honestly can't see it being about it since you know, it takes ~10-20 years or even more to get from death row to execution.
And the more you search about it the more ridiculous it becomes, at California's death row since 1978(California reinstates death penalty) 13 have being executed while 76 have died of other causes[natural/suicide/other] that a ~1 in 6 chance of actual execution, but they still paid 4 billion dollars since it's reinstatement.
People need to realize that capital punishment is government approved eye for eye, and that we are better than this.

Von den Haag huh? One second, I'm going to repost something and highlight the important bits for you. Read carefully now FPoD.



Seriously, do you...not like to read?

So the posts have put holes in the capital punishment case. However, it is just my personal belief that capital punishment is acceptable. I believe in an eye for an eye. I know alot of you disagree but that is the truth.

Allow me a quote.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

Yes yes. And when seeking revenge dig two graves. One for your enemy and another for oneself