Martin Sheen's biggest regret? Reminds me though, I must remember to check if he's remembered to do a funny tweet next time he bashes a woman. The attention Charlie gets is unfathomable. On a happier note - Illinois became the 16th US state to abolish the death penalty. Yay!
Charlie Sheen is finally funny. Back on subject... I say we dispose of these folks the easiest way possible. Somebody brought up a good point earlier that it costs more to sentence a death penalty than keep the guy in prison for life... no clue why that is, but if they're less of a strain on society that way, just keep them in for life. These kinds of people do not necessarily deserve the attention of society. As I said before, I think the factors that drove them into committing such a horrible act need to be examined, not the criminals themselves.
Anti-death penalty campaigners across the USA are hopeful that the decision by Illinois could kick-start some kind of domino effect that will see some of those other 34 states follow suit. Interestingly, the current Governor, Pat Quinn, who announced the decision, is a Democrat and a supporter of the death penalty, but even he has admitted that "It's not possible to create a perfect, mistake-free, death penalty system..." Illinois hadn't actually executed anyone in the last 12 years after they were suspended in 2000 by a Republican Governor, George Ryan, who came to believe that the death penalty did not deter would-be murderers and that the risk of executing a single innocent person outweighed any potential benefits. Texas remains the undoubted leader in executions, with 466 killings in the last 35 years. They will almost certainly be the last domino to tumble!
The main sentencing reason was retribution? I'd be interested in any comments made by the presiding judge. Do you know where any relevant material can be found? ~ Mist
^ Um, you think sentencing someone to death isn't overwhelmingly retributive in itself? Any presiding judge who passes death upon someone isn't going to get their knickers into a twist over the person rotting on death row... The main reason for people staying for years on death row is the drawn out and convoluted appeals process. The fact that waiting to die in most cases constitutes mental torture is probably just a nice bonus for those who bay for blood.
Certainly...quite retributive. I understood your comment to mean you thought the main reason for the extended wait was intended retribution as part of the sentence. My mistake. Again, I thought some comment or such made by the judge in question prompted these observations. ~ Mist
People seem unwilling to think about it in financial terms, but in the face of massive cuts to education budgets and cut-backs in government spending, I think it has to be seen in this way. In California alone, in 2008, it cost $137 million to maintain the criminal justice system. If the death penalty was abolished, that number would drop to just $11.5 million. In New Jersey, where the death penalty has been suspended (but death row inmates are still incarcerated), the cost of keeping those people imprisoned has risen to $253 million a year (as of last year). The executions themselves are relatively cheap--the drug used costs $86.08--but the cost of keeping an inmate in prison is on average $78.95 per day. With lengthy appeals processes and the over-capacity of many courts, it's no surprise that the average cost for an execution can get up to $700,000 per person, as it is in Washington. From a financial perspective alone, it's pretty clear that capital punishment is not an effective use of taxpayer funds; from a human standpoint, it's even more disastrous--the cost of one innocent life is already too high a price for such a system.
Absolutely! That has to be the definitive argument against the death penalty - as appealing as that solution may seem in the most horrendous of cases.
Just watched a video appeal. It's totally chilling to imagine that any state or country can continue with an execution when there is any doubt. How does that amount to any kind of justice - for the condemned, for the victim or for the family of either?
Modern polls suggest that support for the death penalty still runs at over 60% in the USA, so there is clearly a different mindset in America than in other western nations. However, when those supporters were offered a choice between the death penalty and a genuine "life without parole" sentence, over half favoured the latter option. It may therefore be reasonable to deduce that a significant amount of death penalty proponents are at least partly motivated by a suspicion that the killers will otherwise receive too lenient a sentence and could be back on the streets one day.
I say we get rid of the death penalty and reinstate torture. There's a deterrent for you. Think anyone would shoplift if it meant twenty minutes on the rack? No, no they wouldn't. Murderers would get like a full day of torture or something. Then you just send them on their way; the taxpayer's obligation to them has ended. Cheap, fast, and extremely efficient.
That's something we do have in Britain - jail sentences that are far too lenient. They don't give a feeling of justice the victims of crime and they don't make the rest of us feel safe. Premeditated, deliberate murder, murder in the course of a crime, child murder, should all carry a mandatory life sentence - that is life in jail, not fifteen years then remission. We keep tellin 'em - but no-one's listening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNNGCn-MeF8 I think Amnesty International make valid arguments in this little video, watch it. The financial one is a big one as well, I didn't know the numbers were so far apart! The ethical argument still is most convincing to me.
Without the seething, knee-jerk response that I'd normally get when reading about serial killers, I realize that I am against the death penalty. A waste of money and it won't bring the dead back to life.
I agree that some sentencing in the UK is too lenient, but I would save true "life" imprisonment for the most severe cases. Because you've taken a life under a certain set of circumstances, yes, you have to accept the punishment, but it doesn't necessarily mean that at some point in the distant future you can't reintegrate safely into society and make a useful contribution. I think that it's generally a good idea to leave convicts, even murderers, with a degree of hope that they still have a worthwhile future further down the line. It can encourage them to improve themselves - and it can also motivate them to be well-behaved prisoners. But of course, it remains important that the punishment is seen to fit the crime.
I agree with that in principle, but too many so-called reformed prisoners are released and commit similar crimes. There are different degrees of murder, but some some killers should never be allowed out.
The trick would be to make the torture as horrific and traumatizing an experience as possible right from the get-go. Guy comes out of the Laboratory of Justice with his knees knocking, crying out in his sleep, and willing to do anything to never have to go back, his criminal buddies will take note and the word will spread. Problem solved, America. You're welcome.
