Man cuts tracking bracelet then rapes child and murders mother in NY

[Colt556]

Then we just need to make the process faster and less expensive. Being condemned to prison for the rest of your life with no chance of parole is enacted quite quickly and you can't spam appeals non-stop for that. Why can't the death penalty be the same way? Give them like, two appeals max and if both fall flat you get the chair. Would be far cheaper than keeping them locked up for decades. I mean this guy was what, 29? That's 50-70 years we will have to pay for him. Think about that. 50 to 70 ****ing years he will be draining our tax dollars. Even if they spam appeals it might still be cheaper just to kill him. But you'd have to do the math on that.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Then we just need to make the process faster and less expensive. Being condemned to prison for the rest of your life with no chance of parole is enacted quite quickly and you can't spam appeals non-stop for that. Why can't the death penalty be the same way? Give them like, two appeals max and if both fall flat you get the chair. Would be far cheaper than keeping them locked up for decades. I mean this guy was what, 29? That's 50-70 years we will have to pay for him. Think about that. 50 to 70 ****ing years he will be draining our tax dollars. Even if they spam appeals it might still be cheaper just to kill him. But you'd have to do the math on that.

The reason we have that many appeals in death row cases is because you have to be absolutely sure you're not wrong. Death row inmates should have the right to appeal as many times as they can so the state can make 100% sure that the sentence and verdict is correct. Is it 100% effective? No, but we shouldn't make it quicker just to appease the fact that you wish it didn't take as long.

 

[Colt556]

The reason we have that many appeals in death row cases is because you have to be absolutely sure you're not wrong. Death row inmates should have the right to appeal as many times as they can so the state can make 100% sure that the sentence and verdict is correct. Is it 100% effective? No, but we shouldn't make it quicker just to appease the fact that you wish it didn't take as long.

Just make it so each appeal is a guaranteed court session, with full jury, the works. New jury, new judge, new lawyers if the guy wants. So for death row he gets two entire court cases. If he's found guilty by three bloody juries and sentenced to death by three judges, that should be good enough. No system will ever be perfect but this would give him plenty of opportunities to get himself out of the death penalty and would ultimately be cheaper than caring for him for 50-70 years.

 

[Emerald Iris]

Just make it so each appeal is a guaranteed court session, with full jury, the works. New jury, new judge, new lawyers if the guy wants. So for death row he gets two entire court cases. If he's found guilty by three bloody juries and sentenced to death by three judges, that should be good enough. No system will ever be perfect but this would give him plenty of opportunities to get himself out of the death penalty and would ultimately be cheaper than caring for him for 50-70 years.

Or the cost will end up being the same.

Brandon has it right as well. Even with Death Row cases there is always that chance that the convicted is actually innocent. We all have a moral compass and nobody, with a sense of what is considered "proper moral conscious", wants to kill an innocent man.

 

[Colt556]

Or the cost will end up being the same.

Brandon has it right as well. Even with Death Row cases there is always that chance that the convicted is actually innocent. We all have a moral compass and nobody, with a sense of what is considered "proper moral conscious", wants to kill an innocent man.

If you fail three court cases, then you're probably not innocent. The system isn't perfect but eh, it's as close as we can get until we get mind-reading technology. And I can guarantee you even three full court cases would still be cheaper than keeping this guy locked up in a glorified zoo for 50-70 years.

Besides, if you wanna get right down to it. Condemning an innocent man to life in prison without chance of parole is no more humane than outright killing him. Nobody here can even imagine living their -ENTIRE- lives in a 10x10 cell. So the argument of "well he might be innocent" isn't exactly valid, since life in prison or death, both are equally horrible in their own ways. In some ways life in prison would be worse.

 

[Green Ranger]

Wow. As despicable as the crime was, the responses from some of our members is just...outright disgusting.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

If you fail three court cases, then you're probably not innocent. The system isn't perfect but eh, it's as close as we can get until we get mind-reading technology. And I can guarantee you even three full court cases would still be cheaper than keeping this guy locked up in a glorified zoo for 50-70 years.

Besides, if you wanna get right down to it. Condemning an innocent man to life in prison without chance of parole is no more humane than outright killing him. Nobody here can even imagine living their -ENTIRE- lives in a 10x10 cell. So the argument of "well he might be innocent" isn't exactly valid, since life in prison or death, both are equally horrible in their own ways. In some ways life in prison would be worse.

Which is why people in prison can have an appeal too.

Lots of prison convictions have been overturned by the advent of DNA technology. Technology is constantly improving, and there are always new ways to verify guilt or prove innocence.

 

[Kaeb]

Wow. As despicable as the crime was, the responses from some of our members is just...outright disgusting.

You're surprised?

 

[Cassel]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality

 

[Green Ranger]

And honestly colt...playing the odds to gamble with a person's life? Death penalties get ****ed up even with the current sysyem. So obviously the fewer appeals, the more innocents are wrongfully sent to death. And that's a justifiable solution how exactly?. Thats completely barbaric and if you had any semblance of a moral compass you'd feel bad for even suggesting such an idea.

 

[Cassel]

I think that we all need more love in this forum.

[video=youtube;zaGUr6wzyT8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaGUr6wzyT8[/video]

 

[Colt556]

Which is why people in prison can have an appeal too.

Lots of prison convictions have been overturned by the advent of DNA technology. Technology is constantly improving, and there are always new ways to verify guilt or prove innocence.

And that's true, however for a lot of cases it pretty much is open and shut because you caught them red-handed. This case being a good example. I agree that if it's up for dispute, such as the zimmerman case, we can't jump the gun. But if someone was caught in the act we know, without a shadow of a doubt they did it, may as well axe em and save everyone the trouble. Death penalty aint thrown around that much anyways.


Also, Ranger, my moral compass is as strong as anyone elses. It's just not pointed in the same way. Morals are a social construct and are ever changing. What is immoral now was perfectly moral a hundred years ago. And what was immoral then is moral now. I'm a realist and look at things coldly, my moral compass is there but it's not on top of a bleeding heart.

 

[Green Ranger]

Spoken like a true sociopath. Also note, dodging points where convenient and broad generalizations without evidence or sources. Again.

 

[Colt556]

Spoken like a true sociopath. Also note, dodging points where convenient and broad generalizations without evidence or sources. Again.

There's nothing wrong with being a sociopath. Not that I am one, balance in all things Ranger. Too much empathy is equally as bad as too little. Also what points have I dodged and what broad generalizations did I make?

 

[Green Ranger]

And I can guarantee you even three full court cases would still be cheaper than keeping this guy locked up in a glorified zoo for 50-70 years.

Statement is unfounded without facts or numbers to back it up.

Death penalties get ****ed up even with the current sysyem. So obviously the fewer appeals, the more innocents are wrongfully sent to death. And that's a justifiable solution how exactly?

Missed argument here.

...for a lot of cases it pretty much is open and shut because you caught them red-handed...

Generalization. Evidence/sources need to back up statement.

Also, Ranger, my moral compass is as strong as anyone elses. It's just not pointed in the same way. Morals are a social construct and are ever changing. What is immoral now was perfectly moral a hundred years ago. And what was immoral then is moral now. I'm a realist and look at things coldly, my moral compass is there but it's not on top of a bleeding heart.

There's a world of difference between being a bleeding heart and not killing someone because 'Oh, they're probably guilty,' which is essentially what you're advocating.

 

[Colt556]

Statement is unfounded without facts or numbers to back it up.

It's a safe assumption that three court cases does not cost more than the cost of caring for a man for his entire life. They aren't THAT expensive. But if you wanna nitpick because "no factual evidence!" by all means. I'm not here to come up with essays and surveys and whatnot to prove my point, I don't care enough to bother with that. So I can live with throwing out things that make sense. If someone does do the math and proves me wrong, then I'll accept that.

Missed argument here.

I covered that in my response to Brandon, so no, it is not a missed argument.

Generalization. Evidence/sources need to back up statement.

You say it as if there's something bad about generalizations. We know, for a fact, there exists many criminal cases where the criminal is caught red handed. This is fact. If you dispute this you're just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. We all know it happens. Now specific numbers, that is what we don't have. However specific numbers don't matter for the point I was making. The fact that it happens at all does. So the only evidence I need is this case alone to show that cases happen where the bad guy is caught red handed. If my point was about X percentage of cases are open and shut, or in some other way required an exact number, then your point would be valid. But it doesn't, so your point isn't valid.

There's a world of difference between being a bleeding heart and not killing someone because 'Oh, they're probably guilty,' which is essentially what you're advocating.

Not once have I advocated killing someone because "Oh, they're probably guilty" and when you try to put words in someone's mouth is shows a fundamental flaw in your ability to debate. If they are guilty, why should we bother supporting them for the rest of their life? I even specified that if there is reasonable doubt we shouldn't use the death penalty, I literally said that. But if we KNOW they did it, not assume they did it, but KNOW they did it because we caught them in the act, why shouldn't we kill them? It's more humane than letting them languish in a cell for the rest of their lives and it doesn't needlessly burden us. And that is my point. It's better for all involved to simply kill them. But obviously only if the situation warrants it. If you try to take my argument out of context, shame on you, because I've been very clear where my stance is.

 

[Crosby]

It’s a sad implication on society when we have blood lust over crime and want people to receive the death penalty. It’s an even sadder implication when those opposed to the death penalty are opposed simply so the criminal can be raped and/or murdered while in prison.

It may be sad but wouldn't care if lived the rest of his life bowlegged, people like that need to be punished.

 

[Green Ranger]

It's a safe assumption that three court cases does not cost more than the cost of caring for a man for his entire life. They aren't THAT expensive. But if you wanna nitpick because "no factual evidence!" by all means. I'm not here to come up with essays and surveys and whatnot to prove my point, I don't care enough to bother with that. So I can live with throwing out things that make sense. If someone does do the math and proves me wrong, then I'll accept that.

Okay, so you don't have any numbers to back up your statement. Concession accepted.

I covered that in my response to Brandon, so no, it is not a missed argument.

Oh, so it's justified when it's open and shut cases? And when we turn around in five years and new evidence appears (which does happen), then what, oops, too bad?

You say it as if there's something bad about generalizations. We know, for a fact, there exists many criminal cases where the criminal is caught red handed. This is fact. If you dispute this you're just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. We all know it happens. Now specific numbers, that is what we don't have. However specific numbers don't matter for the point I was making. The fact that it happens at all does. So the only evidence I need is this case alone to show that cases happen where the bad guy is caught red handed. If my point was about X percentage of cases are open and shut, or in some other way required an exact number, then your point would be valid. But it doesn't, so your point isn't valid.

That's nice, but if you're talking about changing the current system (which you are), you'd need to prove evidence, statistics etc to prove that, hey this is actually happening for the majority of cases going through the system. Since you don't have that, then your broad generalizations are meaningless.

Not once have I advocated killing someone because "Oh, they're probably guilty" and when you try to put words in someone's mouth is shows a fundamental flaw in your ability to debate.

Three trials and if they can't prove they're not guilty, then off with their heads? I should hook you up with the Queen of Hearts.

If they are guilty, why should we bother supporting them for the rest of their life? I even specified that if there is reasonable doubt we shouldn't use the death penalty, I literally said that. But if we KNOW they did it, not assume they did it, but KNOW they did it because we caught them in the act, why shouldn't we kill them? It's more humane than letting them languish in a cell for the rest of their lives and it doesn't needlessly burden us.

Humane from whose perspective? Let's say Convict X is married and has kids. He is guilty of a death penalty crime. So, is it humane to deprive the children of convict X of ever knowing their father? Is it humane to cut his life short, just because he did something wrong - regardless of said person's own choice? Who are you to decide whether a person is to live or die - in a society where murder is criminal, what gives any of us the right to decide the fate of another life when the whole point of prisons is to remove lawbreakers from the society they were a part of?

And that is my point. It's better for all involved to simply kill them. But obviously only if the situation warrants it. If you try to take my argument out of context, shame on you, because I've been very clear where my stance is.

So far, your idea of 'if the situation warrants it' is, at best, vague. So who determines whether a crime is worth the death penalty - because of how guilty the person is? Last I checked the legal process and the punishment process were fairly seperate entities - do we now get juries to grade guilt on a scale of 1 to 10 to determine punishment?

 

[Brandon Rhea]

And that's true, however for a lot of cases it pretty much is open and shut because you caught them red-handed. This case being a good example. I agree that if it's up for dispute, such as the zimmerman case, we can't jump the gun. But if someone was caught in the act we know, without a shadow of a doubt they did it, may as well axe em and save everyone the trouble. Death penalty aint thrown around that much anyways.

The very philosophy of our legal system is that guilt is in dispute. Everyone deserves to be able to exercise the full extent of the law on their behalf. If we start considering things open and shut and therefore we can cut corners, then we're taking the first steps on a dangerous road.

 

[Phil]

Eeh. Kill the bastard.

We're not doing sentences to justify our bloodthirst. It's to remove a disease from society.

And this guy? He's a disease. Ol' Sparky's the cure.

I agree with this guy. Sometimes imprisonment is not enough for horrific crimes like this. I'm not getting into the whole death penalty/imprisonment for life argument because it's so pointless if neither side will agree with the others. You do a crime like this, you get the punishment. Most of my family seems to be in the same league too. Imprisonment is fine for some cases, but an extreme one like this? Forget it.