Originally Posted by heikstheo

You see, if cost were the sole concern, we could make things more efficient by having an assembly line of nooses awaiting the convicted criminals right outside the courtroom. Expediting the sentence right then and there would cut down on the cost of appeals. We could even make a profit on the deal by putting the carcasses of the offenders throgh a wood chipper and selling it as dog food or mulch or something. Death penalty wins out on a cost-efficiency basis. Problem solved.

Originally Posted by Makedde

Originally Posted by Makedde

Originally Posted by White Fox

Who executes them doesn't matter. There are only a certain number of people who would take someone else's eye knowing that they would be punished in the same way. After someone has their eyes taken out, it's sort of hard to take them from another person. People who would take another person's eye, even if they only had one taken out, would have to repeat it to make the whole world blind. After they did it twice, they wouldn't be able to anymore.



That's pretty funny, because I am against the death penalty.

Here's why:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2061
Costs News and Developments: 2001 - 1998

...

Originally Posted by superdude17*

f0ca1 refuses to erase my name from his signature....I believe that b/c I am a member, if I ask for him to remove it, he should. Of course, most normal and sympathetic individuals would have enough common courtesy to respect what other members have asked, but f0ca1 has again and again denied my attempts.

Originally Posted by JMS

youre not really against it, youre just against mistakes and excessive spending.

Originally Posted by superdude17*

f0ca1 refuses to erase my name from his signature....I believe that b/c I am a member, if I ask for him to remove it, he should. Of course, most normal and sympathetic individuals would have enough common courtesy to respect what other members have asked, but f0ca1 has again and again denied my attempts.

Originally Posted by Glinda

In addition to supporting the death penalty, I also support a change to our crazy appeals process. In my world, convicted rapists and murderers would have five years or five appeals, whichever comes first. If you use up your five appeals and are still adjudged guilty, you get a short walk to the yard and a bullet in the head. Similarly, if five years passes and none of your appeals bring a change in judgment, BANG, you're dead.

NEXT?

Originally Posted by White Fox

I oppose it for two core reasons.

One, it costs more for society without producing further benefit for society.

Two, because of human error and imperfect systems, innocent people are sometime put to death, which is reason enough to throw out the whole penalty.