A much better solution is replace the death penalty, or the penalty for the worst crimes (such as murder) with life in solitary confinement.

A 1x1 metre concrete cell with a bucket. The inmate will never be able to fully stretch out, and will have no comfort, as well as minimal contact with other humans. Let them suffer.

When you take away someone's rights through something like murder, you yourself should have your rights taken away.

Further, I don't like the idea of having people fight each other to the death like described below. It will end in us glorifying the winners. You don't want to glorify people who are meant to be punished.

That in itself is a fate worse than death.

I must commend you for thinking of something so diabolical. Also, just a little hint of irony here, but I don't think solitary confinement is much better than fighting to death, haha.

A gladiatorial would be great for the government to raise revenue, sure, but it glorifies the fighters, which is unacceptable. They should be considered scum.

And yeah, it's one of my more evil thoughts ^.^

Plus, it's cheaper than death row.

We should just put anyone who's in prison for life into a gladiator/Hunger Games type thing, let them fight for their lives. Then we film it and put it on TV!

That sounds like something George Carlin would say.

It does seem that way, but it is a good idea. That way, we only have to feed and house the winner, and only between fights.

Oh I wasn't saying it wasn't a good idea. :p

I would personally pay to watch prisoners fight to the death

Yes. If you purposely take a life (not self defense) you should be killed. It's that easy.

What if 2 years after the alleged murder they found out some of the evidence was fraudulent and the person was actually innocent?

What if it were an accident? What then?

could you imagine how much less crime we would have if we started hanging people for robbery and other crimes again?
or started shooting gang members on sight?
too bad that wont happen.
but rape and murder should get death.
its a waste of money to keep people in prison for life.
hell every life sentence should get death. life in prison is an extended death penalty anyway right?

What about people who are wrongly convicted and are given the death penalty for a crime they didn't commit?

to fucking bad.
you still sit a few years on death row.
how many times does that actually happen anyway?

More often then it should. I don't think you should be so swift to proclaim the death penalty...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18091903
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15013860
They are just two cases where the executed was more than likely an innocent man.

trusting british news for a case in texas.

It's an international broadcasting network. It's neutral and delivers all the facts, unlike the biased American news stations.

From a purely philosophical point of view (ie. not factoring economic costs), I'm all for it. Not for justice, but it's my personal preference. People say the DP is inhumane, but in my mind it's not nearly as bad as prison. There's this place filled with the worst of humanity, serial killers, baby rapists, you name it, there here, and then there's "good" people who are constantly watching me, saying what I can and can't do, when and where I can, when to get up, when to go to sleep, when to piss/shower/shit/shave/etc. and if I don't I'll get a beating. It's torturous, hellish, and I couldn't imagine anything worse. And best of all, I'm going to live like this until I die, which will either take way too goddamn long given the circumstances or will be a messy, violent affair at the hands of some other inmate. Realistically, I'd do it myself, but I'm considering that a self-imposed death penalty.

Or you can take me out back and put a bullet in my heart and it's over. No fear, nothing, just lights out and I'm gone. There's no doubt in my mind that an execution is far more humane than life imprisonment.

I see what you mean with prison being a sort of mini-totalitarian society, and I do agree with you on the inhumane aspects of it. Though I suppose if you factor in economic costs you'd have a far different point of view.

Not really, I just didn't want to go into something that's already been expounded upon.

I think access to it should be much easier, but the current steps in place just make it impractical. Still, I can only speak for myself, but I'd off myself first chance if I ever got more than 15 w/o parole. The person going in isn't going to be remotely the same as the person coming out, to me it's already a death sentence anyway.

This is of course coming from the American perspective of the penal system. Don't know enough about other countries' to say anything. But either way, there needs to be penal system reform, just not sure which way it should go.

The American penal system is far worse than any other's systems. This is a well-accepted fact. But yea, prisons in America are a far worse thing than death at times.

See, that's what I think too. Reserve the worst sentence for the worst.

I have no issue with it in principle, but the way its currently done, people who are being executed end up serving more than a life sentence anyway and its a lot more expensive considering all the legal paperwork and appeals. If it was just trial -> conviction-> execution, then it would be less costly and might act as a crime deterrent. But the way its currently done, it not worth the trouble.

Yea I agree with you. If it were just more efficient it'd be better. Though I still am for it.

it is more expensive,
who has the right to decide who lives/dies,
no chance to be released when new information arises

But it's costly to keep prisoners in jail for so long.
They do. And the people at fault, but that's a far different matter and shouldn't be assessed just bluntly like this.
Alright.

it costs significantly more to execute a person humanly then it is to keep them in prison
www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost
It also does not act as a deterrent.
States with the death penalty have a higher crime rate then others.


Look at Norway, the country has quite possibly the lowest crime rates and the lowest re-offending rates in the world (ignore a homicidal maniac) and their prisons focus more on rehabilitation then on punishment
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18121914 (article about Bastoy)

"In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case."

What the fuck? That's outrageous. What kind of death penalty are they enforcing? A joyride of death? Goddamn.

Norway is a lot more moral with the penalty than America. They don't see jails as a way to lock up everyone who's bad, they see it as a way to change people for the better; which I'll admit is the better look on it.

AND IT IS SO MUCH CHEAPER

Yea, sadly so.

so did i convert you to the bright side?

our cookies taste better

I still believe in the death penalty. There's obviously issues with it that I see now, though.

can i ask why you are for it?

Morally, if you do something bad something of equal moral value should be dealt to you; i.e., kill someone, get killed.

Killing someone is wrong. Always. Just because you killed someone does not make you being killed right.

It's the same way for rape. Just because you rape someone and go to jail does not make you going to jail and being raped "justice". In human nature there are things that are always wrong, no matter what. Having your life ended is one of them.

Not always. There are cases where it's not wrong, such as mass murders, mass rapes, mass... Well, an excess of anything bad I suppose.

No, it doesn't. But just because you rape someone doesn't mean you get off easy, either. No I'm not implying you have to get raped yourself to compensate. But you still have to get something given to you to 'right the wrong', persay.

I only responded like that because I don't think you can "cancel morals out" like that. Like a murder and a murder doesn't bring you to 0, it brings you to -2 morally. However I can understand how the family would feel.

I actually at one point was for the death penalty until I heard how much it costed and such. However, now that I realize how scary the government actually is, I would never allow them the power to choose life or death. Governments as a whole already have a strict monopoly on violence, they are the only institution that proclaim they have the right to use violence to make you pay taxes, obey laws, and they can limit your rights as well using violence. This is widely accepted by society as well.

I'm not saying you can cancel them out like that, simply implying you can balance it out by working something out.

I forget exactly who said the quote, and forgive me if I fuck it up, but someone once said that the government should fear the people and not the other way around. However the government still has to have control over the people if they ever go "berserk", let's say. Though I don't find the act of using violence to limit your rights, you're looking at it very squarely. What if your rights are limited for a reason? What if you've done something in the past? I don't think everyone's the exact same, so not everything should be treated as such.

I'm not saying the government should not be able to limit prisoner's rights, I was simply pointing out that government has the power to limit everyone's rights with violence, even if this decision is simply made by self-interested "representatives".

I am pretty sure this is not the quote you are talking about, but there was one from 'V for Vendetta' that had a similar gist:

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

It has the power most certainly. Though I believe that violence should only be used in those situations if it's for the greater good; the country, or the state. Not anything like monetary gains for a company.

Maybe. I have heard of that kind of quote while reading a book on Government sometime ago in my History class (we were obliged to read a book and give information on it through a presentation). Don't suppose they could have just gotten inspiration from there, huh?

One example of this is if you refuse to pay taxes. It's almost similar to slavery in this sense because your master is only letting you live here if you benefit him monetarily, if you don't pay him he uses violence on you. I know the counter-arguments to this, I just simply wanted to point out an interesting perspective. You have had quite an interesting thread going on here.

And yeah, I figured the quote you were talking about had more to it. I want to watch the movie now though XD.

I sort of see how you mean with slavery, what with paying taxes and debts, and I do agree with you there. But you're looking at it as if the Gov is one big bad monster. Sure it has its moments, but overall it's there for the protection of the people. And if the people act up, it should be the Gov's duty to enforce the law onto them.

Go watch it. It is insanely good.

I have an essay due Monday with a similar prompt to this theme. When I posted it on this board I didn't know it would still be the prompt the professor uses, give me your opinion if you wish. A big reason he made this prompt is to get people thinking:

funnyjunk.com/politics/1506#1506

And yeah, it's actually my favorite movie of all time, it just has so many awesome quotes (like the government one).

i'm not saying the death penalty is justice, but when people sit around a killer of their loved ones to see him die, that's not justice, that's revenge.

I'm saying the distinction must never even come close to being blurry, and the death penalty makes it too fuzzy

Well, if someone kills your relative you're not going to feel very much spite for them I would think. Obviously they're going to want "Justice" (a vague term nowadays) to be put into use.

yeah, and letting the law in the hands of a desperate, traumatized person is exactly one of the worst things to do, no?

It is, yes. But you have to look at it from their perspective; someone close to you dies. Would you want the killer to feel the same pain or let them go somewhere else?

Yeah, and the law must be like Ulysse's mast, keeping that individual from acting once he loses his lucidity.

But on a personal level, i just feel wrong condemning someone to death for a particular facet of his psyche. It gets too complex to just erase them and say it's justice.

So what do you think should be done to them? Just let them go to jail?

yeah, maximum isolation, maybe? i don't have it all thought out, i'm only 19, though

That would cost quite a bit of taxpayer money. It'd be more efficient to simply kill them off and be done with it.

I have actually hurd that the money it costs to put someone into the trials for putting them on death row, along with the cost of the lethal injections is actually MORE on average than the cost of keeping them in jail. That's one of the main reasons I don't support the death penalty personally (also, verdicts can be mistaken- the decision to kill someone can not be undone).

Wow I spelled it as "hurd"...

*Facepalm*

But years behind bars can't be undone as well. And yes, it is more costly to just kill someone off there, but keeping them alive for years on end costs more than it I would assume.

I am an economics major, one of the first thing I look at is how this effects the tax payers. I'm not just saying it is my opinion that it costs less, I am saying there have been numerous studies about it. Personally, I got my information from a girl in one of my classes who had researched the topic. However, here are some links:

www.english-online.at/society/capital-punishment/death-penalty-inmates.ht m

www.aclunc.org/issues/criminal_justice/death_penalty/frequently_asked_questions_about_the_costs_of_california's_death_penalty.shtml

(See the first sentence and onward if you like)

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/features/index.asp? article=f042009_Death

I can find scholarly articles for you also if you wish. Also, I actually have a bigger problem with something else you said, to the anon's two points below- the 2nd one is more valid. I am a libertarian and so I oppose the government having more power. The federal government/ court systems having the ability to kill people is akin to a fascist state that decides whether its people live. I am not trying to directly compare the US or any other country to a dictatorial state, however I do not support the government having the enormous power of ending people's lives.

Lastly, regarding the error of a trial. There's a difference between losing a few years in prison and losing your life- one is 100% not reversible.

I like how the first link explains definitions to me, lol.

This was surprising. Though I feel as though millions of dollars could be saved by simply executing them on the spot... And not having to fuss about everything else. But there's also a fair bit of judgment to be made there, I suppose, with your last remark.

If it were more efficient and cost less money I'm sure it would prove to be a better process.

i'm not very pragmatic and i admit i get a bit pseudo-philosophical, but can money REALLY be the deciding factor?

Not necessarily, but it is still a factor to be accounted for. However greedy it may seem, if every time something like this happened we just locked them up in jail, it would costly to hell. Now I'm not usually one to factor in money, but... There is quite a bit of thought to be considered with it.

Agh, my puny brain can't compute!

Coin toss? That seems right, doesn't it?

Lmao, if you determine someone's fate based on a coin toss... LOL

"One thing about chaos...It's fair." -I forgot who

Heath Ledger in the Batman movie.

Right, yeah, so there you go, from a killer maniac himself. So ironic. So tragically ironic.

Beautifully ironic, almost.

So instead of a killer dude flipping a coin to let you live or die -Two Face appearing in the same movie too, what are the odds- you got a federal judge doing it.

Jesus, it makes you nihilistic thinking about it.

I don't understand what you just said.

well, to put it simply, by thinking about what to do with murderers i ended up having the same solution as two batman villains when they think about what to do with their victims.

It just turns your head upside down..

Oh I see now...

You're right on the first point, it's hypocritical in nature.

But onward to the second point... Why shouldn't they? If someone does something bad they should get their equal response, right? It's only fair.

There are some people who are beyond therapy. Some people who just love to infuriate others. On the internet we call them trolls, but in real life we call them psychopaths.

You're right, we have to try. But there are still those individuals whose ideologies are beyond their morals. Yea it's cheaper to imprison someone in the short-run, but in the long run it's better to just kill them off then rather than pay for their food, electricity, space, clothes, etc etc in jail.