This, for both reasons.

vigilante wrote:

eh to a point but there's actually a lot of rehab in prisons

I think I've seen JR argue in favor of rehabbing people before, though. I think he's just talking about people who have been sentenced to life who would never have a chance at getting out. There's no point in rehabbing someone who's been sentenced to life in prison without a chance of parole.

Give me sources. I do not want the cost of the appeals and all of that included, that's horse shit. I want the cost of the actual procedure of the death penalty. I'm arguing in a way that assumes the appeals system would be non existent. What's the actual cost of the death penalty itself?

DNA doesn't prove you committed murder. By itself it doesn't even prove you were present during the crime.

I'm talking damning DNA evidence. Not one of your hairs in the bathroom of the building that the crime happened in.

Immortal Technique wrote:

Give me sources. I do not want the cost of the appeals and all of that included, that's horse shit. I want the cost of the actual procedure of the death penalty.I'm arguing in a way that assumes the appeals system would be non existent. What's the actual cost of the death penalty itself?

Why is that horse shit? Because it invalidates your argument? The appellate division is a major part of our judicial system, and it's not going anywhere. Nor should it.

Immortal Technique wrote:

I'm talking damning DNA evidence. Not one of your hairs in the bathroom of the building that the crime happened in.

What exactly is "damning DNA evidence?"

I won't even go there as you don't appear to be willing to comply with the argument prerequisite.

What exactly is "damning DNA evidence?"

Let's say there's a case of rape/murder, where the accused's semen is found in the victim, his hair and other DNA is found on her and his fingerprints are found on the murder weapon. Would you not say that evidence is damning?

Immortal Technique wrote:

I won't even go there as you don't appear to be willing to comply with the argument prerequisite.

Are you kidding me? The arguments prerequisite was, "give me sources. I do not want the cost of the appeals and all of that included." Since the appeals system IS what drives the cost, it's your own fault you didn't get my compliance. You first tell me I can't use something, then you blame me for not using it.

Immortal Technique wrote:

Let's say there's a case of rape/murder, where the accused's semen is found in the victim, his hair and other DNA is found on her and his fingerprints are found on the murder weapon. Would you not say that evidence is damning?

The evidence combined is damning. DNA evidence itself is essentially useless unless collaborated with other evidence.

Because the appeals system is a broken and disgusting system that is abused by criminals on a pretty consistent basis. I was operating in a way that was pretty obviously suggesting that the appeals system would be gone or, at the very least, repaired in a fictional society where the death penalty was a common punishment for criminals convicted of murder with indisputable evidence.

This thread shouldn't be about the hypothetical it should be about the actual. What actually goes on.

Immortal Technique wrote:

Because the appeals system is a broken and disgusting system that is abused by criminals on a pretty consistent basis.

So one of the safety nets that keeps innocent people from getting sent to prison or to death is a disgusting system?

Immortal Technique wrote:

I was operating in a way that was pretty obviously suggesting that the appeals system would be gone or, at the very least, repaired in a fictional society where the death penalty was a common punishment for criminals convicted of murder with indisputable evidence.

The appellate division will always be a part of the criminal justice system, so any arguments that revolve around its dissolution are irrelevant.

As for repairing it, what exactly do you suggest? When dealing with capital punishment, I would think one of the primary goals is to ensure that the person charged is truly the one who perpetrated the crime. Changing the appeals system so it isn't as beneficial to the defendant seems counter-productive.

Furthermore, what constitutes indisputable evidence is subjective.
For example, the situation you gave me:

Let's say there's a case of rape/murder, where the accused's semen is found in the victim, his hair and other DNA is found on her and his fingerprints are found on the murder weapon. Would you not say that evidence is damning?

It's quite possible that the accused had consensual sex with the victim, explaining the DNA and hair. Given the consensual sex, it's also more than possible that the two knew each other, and that he had handled the murder weapon on a prior occasion.

A good defense attorney could poke even more holes in the situation. Which leads me to another point. Many people sentenced to death have mediocre public defenders, whereas wealthy suspects can afford top rate lawyers who often get them out of tight legal battles.

if someone do really huge harm to society，i would for it，kill that son of bitch

nay it costs the government over 1.2 million dollars to give someone the death sentence and the power to determine whether someone lives or dies should not be up to a few people on a jury but that priveledge should only be given to god

Against because I don't trust the state with the right to kill citizens.

I'm for the death penalty but only in extreme cases where they wouldn't get out anyway. Like, if they set a school bus on fire and had sex with the bodies. Or killed like 12 people. Extreme cases.

Cause, if they're in jail there's always a chance of escape, even if it's ridiculously minimal.
They cost taxpayer dollars every year just sitting in there and rotting.
It's slow and unmerciful.

Death penalty= easy way out.
I can agree on the reason but it's mainly for revenge for the victims family etc... if a person killed my daughter I would want to see them die but, death is to easy they might spend a year or so in jail knowing they are going they don't have to live with the guilt & shame that they have brought on themselves.
I would rather them rot in jail for the rest of their life.

I don't believe in the death penalty, but jail isn't even an option these days! I mean, it's easy to come to the conclusion that the death penalty is the easy way out, and that the killer (or whoever) should rot in jail for the rest of his/her life...but in reality that's never the case. No, take your killer, put him in jail and what does he get: hot meals, a bed to sleep in, inmates to socialise with, contact with family and friends, entertainment, clean facilities and in some cases, even education. I don't know about you, but that's not my idea of 'rotting in jail'. Meanwhile, the victim's families are at home, still seeking closure and still having to pay taxes which may or may not go toward keeping their (for example) son or daughter's killer alive and well.

It's not right that families are struggling to find money to put food on the table, and that elderly people are freezing to death because they're too afraid of their gas bills, when these criminals are getting this type of treatment? Again, I'm not saying I believe in the death penalty but there's got to be some other way that isn't considered an easy escape, and that both punishes the convict depending on their crime, and provides closure for the family effected.

It's stupid and pointless, not to mention can lead to the accidental execution of an innocent person.

There really is no winning though. I mean, cause either way. It's not much of a punishment. Like the above person said, prison really isn't all that bad. And you don't have to pay taxes while in prison. Who the hell wouldn't want to not have to pay taxes?

Even at that though, I would still rather see a criminal like that spend the rest of his life in jail. Because you still don't have freedom in prison.

Also, if one where to be wrongly convicted of a crime and put on death row, once they're put to death they're gone. There's no, "Opps, we got the wrong person. You're free to go now." Why? Because they're fucking dead!

Yeah, if it was in place, it should only happen if there is 100% evidence provided first, in a fair trial. If not, I think innocent people would be killed all the time, then there would be a real problem. If it was enforced, it would need to be fair and efficient.

Unfortunately, that's not how it actually goes. It has happened before here in the United State on multiple occasions. Since 1973, 140 people have been exonerated from death row with evidence of their innocence. Around 8 were found innocent after being executed. I think that's too large of a margin of error to be having when you're dealing with life or death.

I am glad it doesn't happen in England because however bad somebody is, it is still the wrong thing to make the whole society into a killing machine and to make individual people - jailers, nurses, caretakers of the death chair, into killers themselves.

wow this shit is 10 years old...

it's still an issue though

I think the mods would prefer you just start a new topic...not bump something from 10 years ago