Death penalty
- Thread starter Andrew
- Start date
- Status
I am for it if the evidence is sure and death is justifiable for the crime.
Keep in mind that the state of California has spent over 4 billion dollars on the death penalty since it was reinstated in 1978. That may not seem like much, being as I'm sure they spend much more on those in prison, but it's important to note that only 13 people have been executed in CA since 1978. That's almost $310 Million per person.
interesting read
Keep in mind that the state of California has spent over 4 billion dollars on the death penalty since it was reinstated in 1978. That may not seem like much, being as I'm sure they spend much more on those in prison, but it's important to note that only 13 people have been executed in CA since 1978. That's almost $310 Million per person.
interesting read
Other states:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
one thing i see about those costs - it not only includes the cost of executing the inmate, but also the cost of the prosecution to prosecute them, the cost of housing them for their countless inevitable appeals, etc. - you'll have those whether executed or not. If you got rid of the bureaucracy and just get down to the cost it takes to execute an inmate versus keeping them in jail the rest of their life, it's way cheaper.
Before taking an American Government course this past fall, I was 100% for the death penalty. After learning much more about death row and death penalty I am now 100% against the death penalty. This is because, in general, many people have been wrongfully accused of a crime and killed through the death penalty (not as common today, but, before DNA testing/other technologies this was quite common.) It honestly disgusts me that innocent lives were taken away just like that. Additionally, if someone is on death row, it is most likely not going to be a short period of time. The longer that someone is on death row, the more expensive it becomes - and guess who is paying for this? The tax payers. Precious money that could be put towards dozens of other things is spent on individuals on death row. Overall, I feel like we would be better off without the death penalty. I am 100% for life without parole.
Here's the thing. Murder is murder. I don't care if you do it, or the government does it. Your murdering a human being who is firmly under your control. It's one thing for a soldier to shoot the dude who's trying to shoot him (I'm still quite anti-war, just wanted to note this). They're actively beyond your ability to pacify. But no matter how you try and justify it, the death penalty is just murder.
It's a bad solution for a problem we create. A huge portion of people in prison are in there for victimless crimes. A very clear step forward that doesn't involve murder is right there. Legalize recreational drug us, and release prisoners imprisoned for dealing or buying drugs. And quite similar action should be taken for other victimless crimes. It's not like killing a few prisoner a year is suddenly going to stem the thousands more coming in. That's just foolish.
Why do conservatives support the death penalty anyway? We're supposed to be the party of small government. Giving your government the right to execute as they see fit for crimes without a fight is the farthest thing from small government there is.
Honestly though. I really don't see how you can reach execution as the solution to any problem.
It's a bad solution for a problem we create. A huge portion of people in prison are in there for victimless crimes. A very clear step forward that doesn't involve murder is right there. Legalize recreational drug us, and release prisoners imprisoned for dealing or buying drugs. And quite similar action should be taken for other victimless crimes. It's not like killing a few prisoner a year is suddenly going to stem the thousands more coming in. That's just foolish.
Why do conservatives support the death penalty anyway? We're supposed to be the party of small government. Giving your government the right to execute as they see fit for crimes without a fight is the farthest thing from small government there is.
Honestly though. I really don't see how you can reach execution as the solution to any problem.
Get rid of it. There's a little "Eigth Amendment" that we have. Killing people is most certainly "cruel... punishment."
But it costs a heck of a lot more to go through all the appeals necessary to actually go through with the death penalty.
Overcrowding isn't an issue of not using the death penalty; it's an issue of over-convicting criminals. Cut a small handful of laws and the US might be able to get its incarceration rate on par with the rest of the world. (Insert obvious allusions to an entirely new can of worms.)
I find that America's "conservatives" (most of them; not all of them) very often cross the "small government" boundary. Abortion, gay marriage, drug policies, the PATRIOT Act, huge military expenditures, and so on. It's not about small government, it's about conserving a way of life.
Like I said, not all conservatives do this, but the Republican platform does it a whole lot.
But it costs a heck of a lot more to go through all the appeals necessary to actually go through with the death penalty.
Overcrowding isn't an issue of not using the death penalty; it's an issue of over-convicting criminals. Cut a small handful of laws and the US might be able to get its incarceration rate on par with the rest of the world. (Insert obvious allusions to an entirely new can of worms.)
I find that America's "conservatives" (most of them; not all of them) very often cross the "small government" boundary. Abortion, gay marriage, drug policies, the PATRIOT Act, huge military expenditures, and so on. It's not about small government, it's about conserving a way of life.
Like I said, not all conservatives do this, but the Republican platform does it a whole lot.
Last edited:
No, it's about the government doing only what the constitution gives it the power to do. drug policies, PATRIOT Act (for the most part) fall under it's scope. Taking over the insurance industry, providing entitlements to people who they know abuse them, that's not. Military expenditures? That's called "provid[ing] for the common defense".
Please note it says "promote the general welfare" (bold added). Not "promote each individual's welfare through entitlements and handouts".
You can't just say "oh the constitution is what we want it to be" - no. The constitution is what it is until you get it amended. And at least conservatives care what it has to say.
Please note it says "promote the general welfare" (bold added). Not "promote each individual's welfare through entitlements and handouts".
You can't just say "oh the constitution is what we want it to be" - no. The constitution is what it is until you get it amended. And at least conservatives care what it has to say.
No one mentioned entitlements. This is about the death penalty. On that subject, the Constitution specifies what the government lacks the power to do:
Death is a touch cruel, I think.
When it comes to the PATRIOT Act, there's another pesky amendment:
Small government suggests that they can't search your mail, but somehow, it's okay to casually browse your emails.
And on defense:
1) Preach fiscal conservativism
2) Have 40% of the entire world's defense budget
3) ???
4) Profit
Death is a touch cruel, I think.
When it comes to the PATRIOT Act, there's another pesky amendment:
Small government suggests that they can't search your mail, but somehow, it's okay to casually browse your emails.
And on defense:
1) Preach fiscal conservativism
2) Have 40% of the entire world's defense budget
3) ???
4) Profit
Neither the drug war or an agency spying on whatever they please was mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. All powers not delegated belong to the state.
Military? Sure. Of course it is. Operative word being defense. The constitution provide for a military to defend us. Not for attacking the villain of the week for the reason of the week. Like really.
I don't care what the limits of the constitution are, because they are just that, limits. It doesn't mean the powers delegated to the federal government are to be abused either. Small government isn't about the constitution, it's about small government, living under the narrow role assigned to it in the constitution.
Military? Sure. Of course it is. Operative word being defense. The constitution provide for a military to defend us. Not for attacking the villain of the week for the reason of the week. Like really.
I don't care what the limits of the constitution are, because they are just that, limits. It doesn't mean the powers delegated to the federal government are to be abused either. Small government isn't about the constitution, it's about small government, living under the narrow role assigned to it in the constitution.
The constitution is full of "the government will". The bill of rights is full of "the government will not do these things, non-all-inclusive, in its attempt to do what it must". Considering the 10th amendment of the constitution states
As in that amendment - the powers not given to the government by the constitution are not the government's power. I would like you to explain how anything really that liberals want falls under the constitution.
The constitution says the government will "provide for the common defense" and they will not impose "cruel and unusual" punishments. Although, is it really cruel to murder someone who heartlessly murdered tens, hundreds of persons? Is that really cruel? It's not unusual - death (or "an eye for an eye") has been a punishment for centuries - unusual would be forcing them to parade around the streets naked painting themselves with vomit or something odd like that.
As in that amendment - the powers not given to the government by the constitution are not the government's power. I would like you to explain how anything really that liberals want falls under the constitution.
The constitution says the government will "provide for the common defense" and they will not impose "cruel and unusual" punishments. Although, is it really cruel to murder someone who heartlessly murdered tens, hundreds of persons? Is that really cruel? It's not unusual - death (or "an eye for an eye") has been a punishment for centuries - unusual would be forcing them to parade around the streets naked painting themselves with vomit or something odd like that.
I would like you to explain how the violation of the Constitution by liberals in any way negates the violation of the Constitution by "conservatives." You keep drawing in this irrelevant argument, but you're not solving the issue at hand, which is the fact that "small government conservatives" repeatedly engage in government overreaches which are explicitly denied in the Constitution.
At least the liberals have the Elastic Clause at their disposal. The Constitution outright states that the government cannot search people without warrants, but Republicans insist on doing so regardless.
Courts have been wrong before. It's absolutely cruel to inject potassium iodide in a person to later find out that he was innocent.
At least the liberals have the Elastic Clause at their disposal. The Constitution outright states that the government cannot search people without warrants, but Republicans insist on doing so regardless.
Courts have been wrong before. It's absolutely cruel to inject potassium iodide in a person to later find out that he was innocent.
But you appear to be against the death penalty in all cases. So, would you say it's cruel to put a convicted murderer with irrefutable evidence such as crystal clear camera evidence, being caught in the act, DNA evidence, etc to death?
Furthermore, I'm confused how liberals can use this:
to make laws that are either not "necessary", not "proper", or not with the purpose of "carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". I'd love to know what "foregoing Power" is being carried out by welfare, by Obamacare, etc.
However, it is very easily argued that, barring any ability to eliminate the possibility of incidentally picking up other communications/transmissions, things such as wire-tapping, surveillance (via camera or otherwise), and the other terms of the PATRIOT Act are necessary and proper to provide for the common defense - especially in the wake of a terrorist attack that killed almost 3,000 persons.
Furthermore, being able to conduct surveillance, especially in the immediate days following a terrorist attack, is extremely vital to the common defense - and you can't deny that.
tl;dr - at least "the common defense" is a "foregoing Power" that most (if not all) of the PATRIOT Act was (if not is still) "necessary and proper" to "carry into Execution". I'm waiting for an explanation on what foregoing Power Obamacare is necessary and properly required to carry into Execution. Same with welfare.
---
I'll also point out that nowhere does the Constitution itself require any form of warrant to search or seize property. It only states the instances in which an actual warrant is issued, and prohibits "unreasonable" searches. Thus, it can be inferred that reasonable searches without a warrant and with due cause and reason are perfectly constitutional.
Furthermore, I'm confused how liberals can use this:
to make laws that are either not "necessary", not "proper", or not with the purpose of "carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". I'd love to know what "foregoing Power" is being carried out by welfare, by Obamacare, etc.
However, it is very easily argued that, barring any ability to eliminate the possibility of incidentally picking up other communications/transmissions, things such as wire-tapping, surveillance (via camera or otherwise), and the other terms of the PATRIOT Act are necessary and proper to provide for the common defense - especially in the wake of a terrorist attack that killed almost 3,000 persons.
Furthermore, being able to conduct surveillance, especially in the immediate days following a terrorist attack, is extremely vital to the common defense - and you can't deny that.
tl;dr - at least "the common defense" is a "foregoing Power" that most (if not all) of the PATRIOT Act was (if not is still) "necessary and proper" to "carry into Execution". I'm waiting for an explanation on what foregoing Power Obamacare is necessary and properly required to carry into Execution. Same with welfare.
---
I'll also point out that nowhere does the Constitution itself require any form of warrant to search or seize property. It only states the instances in which an actual warrant is issued, and prohibits "unreasonable" searches. Thus, it can be inferred that reasonable searches without a warrant and with due cause and reason are perfectly constitutional.
Last edited:
I would be as well. There's no reason to go around murdering people. The dude killed people? So our grand idea, is to kill them? What? That makes no sense. You just judged the act he comitted to be wrong, and worthy of punishment. So you commit the act yourself? We have prisons, they aren't expensive compared to prosecuting the death penalty. Emperical evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the death penalty being a horrible policy.
----------
Searching everything just in case it might be bad is practically the definition of unreasonable search.
----------
Searching everything just in case it might be bad is practically the definition of unreasonable search.
Well, death penalty logic is as follows:
1) Killing people is wrong.
2) People who kill people deserve punishment.
3) People who kill people deserve to be killed.
There's a very clear break in the logic there. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, if you will.
Here's what I think we're losing in this discussion: conservatives push the Constitution actively. Second Amendment is everywhere. Then they break a couple other amendments. Liberals don't actively push the Constitution so much, and so it's not as hypocritical when they break it. You're already jumping to the conclusion that all politicians care about violating the Constitution. I'd argue that almost none of them care about the Constitution. However, the half of them who claim to do so really frustrate me.
The Fourth doesn't give an out here. Straight up, be within reason or have a warrant. There's no "unless this." Your citizens are your citizens. Defend their rights. The PATRIOT Act and PRISM violate freedom in order to protect it. That makes absolutely no sense.
If storing every piece of encrypted data they come across is "within due cause and reason," I don't know what my world considers "reasonable."
1) Killing people is wrong.
2) People who kill people deserve punishment.
3) People who kill people deserve to be killed.
There's a very clear break in the logic there. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, if you will.
Here's what I think we're losing in this discussion: conservatives push the Constitution actively. Second Amendment is everywhere. Then they break a couple other amendments. Liberals don't actively push the Constitution so much, and so it's not as hypocritical when they break it. You're already jumping to the conclusion that all politicians care about violating the Constitution. I'd argue that almost none of them care about the Constitution. However, the half of them who claim to do so really frustrate me.
The Fourth doesn't give an out here. Straight up, be within reason or have a warrant. There's no "unless this." Your citizens are your citizens. Defend their rights. The PATRIOT Act and PRISM violate freedom in order to protect it. That makes absolutely no sense.
If storing every piece of encrypted data they come across is "within due cause and reason," I don't know what my world considers "reasonable."
Empirical evidence is overwhelmingly in support of *our* death penalty policy being a horrible policy. But regardless, you can't claim it's unconstitutional in all cases, because it's hardly cruel to put someone to a painless death who murdered multiple, tens, hundreds of people, violently, cruelly, inhumanely, mutilating them, cutting up, burning limbs... That's not cruel.
If the policy were narrower, so narrow that it could only be used in unequivocal cases with extreme evidence that all but guarantees guilt, then it'd cost so much less to prosecute and carry out. If, say, once two judges agree that they're guilty, as well as two juries, etc, we did not allow them to appeal indefinitely until they found a judge that liked them.. There's so many things wrong with our current policy, but that doesn't mean scrap it all forever - it may mean scrap it and start over, but not to just do away with it at all.
---
Erm, what part of the fourth says "this or that"? It says:
.
I see two points - "Don't search people without probable cause" and "Don't issue any warrants that, under oath, describe the place to be search and the items to be seized". The definition of seize is "take away" - storing data is not "taking away" data, thus it is arguably not seizure.
"Don't search people without probable cause"
"Don't issue any warrants that... seized"
What part of that says "you must have a warrant to search" and "you can't search people with reasonable cause in an emergency"?
If the policy were narrower, so narrow that it could only be used in unequivocal cases with extreme evidence that all but guarantees guilt, then it'd cost so much less to prosecute and carry out. If, say, once two judges agree that they're guilty, as well as two juries, etc, we did not allow them to appeal indefinitely until they found a judge that liked them.. There's so many things wrong with our current policy, but that doesn't mean scrap it all forever - it may mean scrap it and start over, but not to just do away with it at all.
---
Erm, what part of the fourth says "this or that"? It says:
.
I see two points - "Don't search people without probable cause" and "Don't issue any warrants that, under oath, describe the place to be search and the items to be seized". The definition of seize is "take away" - storing data is not "taking away" data, thus it is arguably not seizure.
"Don't search people without probable cause"
"Don't issue any warrants that... seized"
What part of that says "you must have a warrant to search" and "you can't search people with reasonable cause in an emergency"?
Last edited:
- Status