Originally Posted by deep thought

Is it just me or does it seem like we could be saving alot of money by cutback expences on the death penealty. why do criminals have to die so humainly we could just kill them and be done with it. in fact we could just inject them with a massive amount on air and destroy there heart. it dosent last long and its almost costless.

The actual killing isn't the expensive part. The making sure we don't ***k up is what costs the real money. It's pretty sad as it is, as there are a known 23 innocent people who have been executed, and likely far more. If you want to cut costs, you cut the process that ensures we don't execute the wrong person, but then again, I'm pretty sure everyone can figure out what that will do to the innocents to guilty execution ratios.

I am trying to figure out if your serious or just pulling our legs.........can you elaborate? Thank you.......

A bullet doesn't cost much. Neither does a rope, and it can be re-used.

The expense is in the endless appeals. When President Garfield was assassinated, his killer was caught, tried, sentenced, executed and buried within six weeks. Back in the fifies, it was a national scandal that Caryl Chessman spent ten whole years (!) on death row in California before his execution. Now, a prisoner can routinely expect to spend twenty years on death row before the case is finalized. Since most of these convicts are broke by the time they are sentenced, the taxpayers foot the bill for the defense + the prosecution + the incarceration. It's a consequence of our judicial branch morphing from a justice system to a legal system.

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

A bullet doesn't cost much. Neither does a rope, and it can be re-used.

The expense is in the endless appeals. When President Garfield was assassinated, his killer was caught, tried, sentenced, executed and buried within six weeks. Back in the fifies, it was a national scandal that Caryl Chessman spent ten whole years (!) on death row in California before his execution. Now, a prisoner can routinely expect to spend twenty years on death row before the case is finalized. Since most of these convicts are broke by the time they are sentenced, the taxpayers foot the bill for the defense + the prosecution + the incarceration. It's a consequence of our judicial branch morphing from a justice system to a legal system.

I agree, the appeals process is way to long.......You want to cut the expense....Give 2 appeals and 2 years........If the case is not overturned then fry them............Th tawould cut the cost down a whole bunch........

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

Now, a prisoner can routinely expect to spend twenty years on death row before the case is finalized.

For obvious reasons. Do you know the current rate of release? DNA is exonerateing about 1-2 death row inmates every month.

Since most of these convicts are broke by the time they are sentenced, the taxpayers foot the bill for the defense + the prosecution + the incarceration.

The taxpayers, actually counties percisely pay for all of the procesution and often for the defense lawyer. Convicts usually don't pay for their own defenses unless they are very rich. There's no real way to get around that: unless you want to kill more innocent people. It's called due process.

So VOR, you would send a innocent man do die?

You do know that DNA tech as well as other technologies take time to develop. Usually more then two years.

Would you condemn the 216 or so freed prisoners to death merely because their 2 years ran out before their DNA could be tested?

Not to mention that every DNA lab in the US is backlogged, often for months or years. You would condemn a man merely because the process to prove he might just be innocent is jammed up?

Sadistic.

What exactly makes you think you can win a death penalty argument when you have failed every single time in the past in at least 10 different threads?

Originally Posted by Voice Of Reason

I agree, the appeals process is way to long.......You want to cut the expense....Give 2 appeals and 2 years........If the case is not overturned then fry them............Th tawould cut the cost down a whole bunch........

Do you support abortion also? And should we " stone at the gates of the city" those who preform lewd acts befor god?

[QUOTE=Voice Of Reason] ......then fry them............[QUOTE]
My father was a big, tough man, a twice wounded veteran of WWII, former Cop. When I asked him what the worst thing he ever witnessed was, he answered that it was an execution (electrocution). He said that he had seen a lot of bad things - bodies blown apart, maggots crawling out of a dead man's eyes, but the most barbaric thing he ever saw was a man being killed (fried) by the state.
Dono

Originally Posted by johnson

Do you support abortion also? And should we " stone at the gates of the city" those who preform lewd acts befor god?

No I am strongly against the murder of innocent, defenseless babies in the womb unless the mother's life is endangered.....

The difference is your criminal friends have murdered and raped and committed other barbaric crimes against other human beings..........That baby that you want to butcher in the womb committed no crime against anyone......

Originally Posted by Voice Of Reason

I agree, the appeals process is way to long.......You want to cut the expense....Give 2 appeals and 2 years........If the case is not overturned then fry them............Th tawould cut the cost down a whole bunch........

That would also create alot more mistakes and end up sending alot more innocent people to die.You have to get the story straight and make sure that the person being "executed" deserves it, and not some innocent man that was killed because people dont want to spend a few more dollers to put the right man there.
So would it cut down costs. IT sure would as VOR pointed out. However there is more then 1 side.

Originally Posted by Voice Of Reason

I agree, the appeals process is way to long.......You want to cut the expense....Give 2 appeals and 2 years........If the case is not overturned then fry them............Th tawould cut the cost down a whole bunch........

It's funny, i didn't expect you to be pro-death because of your strong abortion feelings, not saying that a fetus is a criminal by any means, just saying that i didn't expect you to feel that way.

Originally Posted by Voice Of Reason

No I am strongly against the murder of innocent, defenseless babies in the womb unless the mother's life is endangered.....

The difference is your criminal friends have murdered and raped and committed other barbaric crimes against other human beings..........That baby that you want to butcher in the womb committed no crime against anyone......

I'm not aware of any friends I have that are criminals. But my point remaines ... if you wouldn't kill an innocent baby why rush and perhaps kill a innocent adult?

Originally Posted by johnson

But my point remaines ... if you wouldn't kill an innocent baby why rush and perhaps kill a innocent adult?

Well said.

Originally Posted by WhiteFalcon

That would also create alot more mistakes and end up sending alot more innocent people to die.You have to get the story straight and make sure that the person being "executed" deserves it, and not some innocent man that was killed because people dont want to spend a few more dollers to put the right man there.
So would it cut down costs. IT sure would as VOR pointed out. However there is more then 1 side.

I should have qualified that...I am talking about cases where there is no doubt of guilt........Eye witnesses, etc........When there is any doubt of guilt the death penalty should not be applicable.........DNA will also sort out the problem too.......

Originally Posted by nikki22005

It's funny, i didn't expect you to be pro-death because of your strong abortion feelings, not saying that a fetus is a criminal by any means, just saying that i didn't expect you to feel that way.

I just have no pity for someone that rapes and murders someone.....That is just me though.......