1. Post #361
    Gold Member
    Winters's Avatar
    August 2010
    4,900 Posts
    I'm saying that in the end, the money would (or at least should) have to be spent to assure that the person is innocent regardless if it is life in prison or death penalty. You say you would look back at the time, but unless the money was spent to assure your innocence, you wouldn't be looking back. You'd still be in prison.
    Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

    The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

    The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

    The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.
    http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

    Plenty of money is spent on making sure people aren't kept in jail for life in they're innocent, $11.5 million dollars in fact.

  2. Post #362
    Gold Member
    hypno-toad's Avatar
    October 2006
    14,601 Posts
    It's sort of a useless statement because it costs tonnes of money (bureaucratic backlash, probably) to do it. So no.

    I don't agree with life sentences either, though. They are just as bad.

  3. Post #363
    burninplaces's Avatar
    June 2008
    466 Posts
    I support it in, albeit only in extreme cases and overwhelming evidence. still, the idea of killing the wrong person makes me second guess myself.

    although I dont view the death penalty as a deterrent, or as a means to protect society, but as revenge/justice (i cannot distinguish between the two)

  4. Post #364
    Gold Member
    DrasarSalman's Avatar
    August 2009
    10,753 Posts
    The problem with keeping people in prison seems to be that it is expensive and some even does escape. First of all, if it cost so much to lock them up, why lock them up? Well, they are dangerous people who you say should never come back to society. Anyway, we aren't all mad after birth, there are factors that define who we are, some care about getting a good education and others are forced to murder and other crimes. Some or most of these factors can be changed, for example, if you grew up in a poor family and is therefore forced to perform burglary, get a better education and a real job. The problem is the fact that these people aren't respected, for example if you have been to jail, you will have a lower chance to get a job, even if it was a few years ago.

    This system goes hardest on murderers, especially in America; either you get locked up forever in hostile environments or you get killed. The US prison system threat murderers as second class citizens, sometimes animals may come into the comparison because they are not considered intelligent enough to be rehabilitated and reintroduced to society. Let's say you have a bit of a problem with alcohol and may have inhibited too much one day, the next day you find out you've killed your own wife. Now what that would teach you is to go to rehabilitation and never drink again, but according to the American prison system, you are no longer a valid member of society and deserve to die.

    What would teach both, would be if you were imprisoned for a temporary amount of time while being rehabilitated by a psychologist. The prison system may still seem hostile, but at least you will not be locked up forever while learning from your mistakes in the same process. Psychology shouldn't be the only service the prison system should offer in my opinion, another one should be rehabilitation to society itself, sometimes you are living in conditions which force you to do crimes to survive, but in most cases those things can be solved with a proper education as well as a motivation pointed towards it. The American prison system's message to criminals is "you shouldn't do it again, or you will loose your freedom", but what it should say is "you know, all this could be prevented and it is not too late to make things right". If you were locked up for something you did, you'd be confused, but if you were locked up and told what you should do, you could learn from it. That is how discipline works and it is something the US is doing horribly wrong, to an extent that it makes criminals hate society even more.

    So how does most of that apply to murderers; well, lock them in, tell them what they did wrong and let them out. To some of you, that may sound horrific, you can't let murderers among us. Still, what is the difference between taking someones freedom and taking someones life? With proper rehabilitation, this may work; if you have killed someone, even deliberately, you aren't a killer the rest of your life. The real enemies are the ones who can't be rehabilitated, for example people with schizophrenia. In this case you might as well lock them up forever, unless they could somehow be cured and driven back to society. There is no reason to lock perfectly mental healthy people who have done any wrong deeds up forever, there is even less reason to kill them because of it. If you think there is a difference in killing another person and another person who have done something wrong, then why isn't murdering another person from a gang justified? Is it the killer that is the difference? Does it mean that a normal person killing someone is horrible, but the government doing it is justice? Remember, these are people, not fruit; when you have a good looking apple, you would eat it, but if you had a bad apple, you'd throw it away. What if the apple was just dirty and needed a polish? I mean, it is still eatable.

  5. Post #365
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    18,901 Posts
    I support it in, albeit only in extreme cases and overwhelming evidence. still, the idea of killing the wrong person makes me second guess myself.

    although I dont view the death penalty as a deterrent, or as a means to protect society, but as revenge/justice (i cannot distinguish between the two)
    revenge is when someone retalliates against someone else due to an earlier incident, so if a guy who ate puppies was stopped by someone, he could eat twice as many puppies as revenge. for it to be justice the retalliating party has to be a just person making a just judgement, therefor I don't find the death penalty to be justice.

    the definition of justice is largely a matter of opinion, but I sincerely doubt someone who can't distinguish between something that requires a government to be good and something that requires a government to be vindictive can properly judge the value of human life.

  6. Post #366
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    Why not to try to rehabilitate the first murder offenders, and send the second murder offenders who can't be rehabilitated to labor camps (ex: uranium mining camps)? These prisoners would not only NOT be spent money on, but produce additional income (as well as cover their own expenses) for the state to reinvest in housing, health care, etc. On top of that, that would reduce the prices of uranium, and lead to a somewhat higher energy generation.

  7. Post #367
    Gold Member
    Boxbot219's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,266 Posts
    Why not to try to rehabilitate the first murder offenders, and send the second murder offenders who can't be rehabilitated to labor camps (ex: uranium mining camps)? These prisoners would not only NOT be spent money on, but produce additional income (as well as cover their own expenses) for the state to reinvest in housing, health care, etc. On top of that, that would reduce the prices of uranium, and lead to a somewhat higher energy generation.
    There's no such thing as not spending money on a prisoner in a first world country.

    And what if they refuse?

    And if you say they can't refuse then how is this any different than slavery?

  8. Post #368
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    There's no such thing as not spending money on a prisoner in a first world country.

    And what if they refuse?
    Speaking of repetitive murder criminals:
    If they refuse, they would be either given the option of euthanasia, or of penal labor. And there is such a thing as 'not spending money on a prisoner in a first world country'. It's easy. They can simply generate enough income plus a surplus to cover their own expenses through penal labor. The surplus would be invested in health care, education, housing, science and technology. On top of that, the energy costs would go down as those prisoners would mine uranium.

  9. Post #369
    Gold Member
    Boxbot219's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,266 Posts
    Speaking of repetitive murder criminals:
    If they refuse, they would be either given the option of euthanasia, or of penal labor. And there is such a thing as 'not spending money on a prisoner in a first world country'. It's easy. They can simply generate enough income plus a surplus to cover their own expenses through penal labor. The surplus would be invested in health care, education, housing, science and technology. On top of that, the energy costs would go down as those prisoners would mine uranium.
    And what if they choose neither? It's not euthanasia if it's against their will. It's called something else.

  10. Post #370
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    And what if they choose neither? It's not euthanasia if it's against their will. It's called something else.
    Speaking of repetitive murder offenders who failed to rehabilitate and still went on murdering people:

    They would be offered a wide variety of 'workplaces', ranging from mining and industrial sectors to service and even science sectors. If they refuse, they would be a second option of euthanasia. They have a choice between dying and not dying.

  11. Post #371
    Gold Member
    Boxbot219's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,266 Posts
    Speaking of repetitive murder offenders who failed to rehabilitate and still went on murdering people:

    They would be offered a wide variety of 'workplaces', ranging from mining and industrial sectors to service and even science sectors. If they refuse, they would be a second option of euthanasia. They have a choice between dying and not dying.
    No, they have a choice between being a slave and dying.

  12. Post #372
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    No, they have a choice between being a slave and dying.
    No, it's a choice between working and voluntary euthanasia. Speaking of repetitive murder offenders who failed to be rehabilitated once again.

    And also, Japan already has a similar prison system.

  13. Post #373
    Gold Member
    Boxbot219's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,266 Posts
    No, it's a choice between working and voluntary euthanasia. Speaking of repetitive murder offenders who failed to be rehabilitated once again.
    You can keep trying to call it whatever you want, but forcing someone to work on the threat that the alternative is killing them is slavery. If someone refuses to be a slave it does not mean they are choosing to be "euthanized".

    Edited:

    And do you honestly trust anyone with a system like this? America can't even get the death penalty done right without killing innocents in the process.

  14. Post #374
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    You can keep trying to call it whatever you want, but forcing someone to work on the threat that the alternative is killing them is slavery. If someone refuses to be a slave it does not mean they are choosing to be "euthanized".

    Edited:

    And do you honestly trust anyone with a system like this? America can't even get the death penalty done right without killing innocents in the process.
    Even if it's slavery by your definitions, I'm not against enslaving the repetitive murder prisoners who can't be rehabilitated for the benefit of the society. Millions could benefit from better health care, lower housing prices, faster economic growth (as a result of higher investment in technology, capital accumulation, etc), as a result.

  15. Post #375
    Gold Member
    Boxbot219's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,266 Posts
    Even if it's slavery by your definitions, I'm not against enslaving the repetitive murder prisoners who can't be rehabilitated for the benefit of the society. Millions could benefit from better health care, lower housing prices, faster economic growth (as a result of higher investment in technology, capital accumulation, etc), as a result.
    So tell me how a system like this would be different from the problems that plague the death penalty?

    In the end a system that has death as a possible action will need loads of due process of the same nature that the death penalty has to ensure that innocent life isn't ended (or enslaved). I guarantee you no amount of slave labor is going to come remotely close to breaking even with how much the due process will cost.

    And I really hope you aren't going to be the second person I've ever argued with over capital punishment who has told me that the solution would be to simply remove due process.

  16. Post #376
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    So tell me how a system like this would be different from the problems that plague the death penalty?

    In the end a system that has death as a possible action will need loads of due process of the same nature that the death penalty has to ensure that innocent life isn't ended (or enslaved). I guarantee you no amount of slave labor is going to come remotely close to breaking even with how much the due process will cost.
    It's easy: The person who doesn't want to die simply wouldn't chose euthanasia as an option. It isn't forced execution. The working conditions wouldn't be much worse than those of the normal workers, and they would still receive wages based on the quantity they produced, but rather low ones.

    Also, there would have to be a very high degree of evidence of repetitive murder after rehabilitation being presented in order to enroll the prisoner in question in such a program.

  17. Post #377
    Gold Member
    Boxbot219's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,266 Posts
    It's easy: The person who doesn't want to die simply wouldn't chose euthanasia as an option. It isn't forced execution. The working conditions wouldn't be much worse than those of the normal workers, and they would still receive wages based on the quantity they produced, but rather low ones.

    Also, there would have to be a very high degree of evidence of repetitive murder after rehabilitation being presented in order to enroll the prisoner in question in such a program.
    It's not easy. You can't just say that their can't be due process in a system of slavery.

    A very high degree of evidence is what due process is for.

  18. Post #378
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    It's not easy. You can't just say that their can't be due process in a system of slavery.

    A very high degree of evidence is what due process is for.
    Of course there would be due processes. There would be a very developed system of due processes, and on top of that, a probability distribution of the criminal being guilty and not guilty would be computed. If the probability of the criminal being not guilty is less than 0.5%, then the criminal would be enrolled in this labor program.

    And this is hardly new, Japan already has such a system.

  19. Post #379
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    18,901 Posts
    No, it's a choice between working and voluntary euthanasia.
    so if they don't want to work, and they don't want to die, you'll... what? make them into slaves?

    that's fucking horrid and I don't ever want you in a position of power.

  20. Post #380
    Gold Member
    Boxbot219's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,266 Posts
    Of course there would be due processes. There would be a very developed system of due processes, and on top of that, a probability distribution of the criminal being guilty and not guilty would be computed. If the probability of the criminal being not guilty is less than 0.5%, then the criminal would be enrolled in this labor program.

    And this is hardly new, Japan already has such a system.
    And what about the innocent people who could potentially slip past such a system that works on even such a low probability of being innocent? The same sort of system that occasionally kills an innocent on death row.

    The point is this is why I don't support the death penalty, or this slavery enforced by death system that you've come up with. Even with due process mistakes are made.

  21. Post #381
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    18,901 Posts
    Of course there would be due processes. There would be a very developed system of due processes, and on top of that, a probability distribution of the criminal being guilty and not guilty would be computed. If the probability of the criminal being not guilty is less than 0.5%, then the criminal would be enrolled in this labor program.
    there will always be that 0.5%. what if those little numbers turn out to be a whole lot bigger? what if there's a flaw in your software? what if you made a mistake, and you're sentencing an innocent man to slavery or suicide?

    this is just far, far too convoluted, and the risks are far too great to ever impliment in a just way. would it not be easier, less risky, and less vindictive to put them under house arrest, carefully analyze their psyche, and sort out any outstanding mental issues? it's certainly better than putting people to work in mines or asking them to kill themselves based on what a computer tells you to do.

  22. Post #382
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    there will always be that 0.5%. what if those little numbers turn out to be a whole lot bigger? what if there's a flaw in your software? what if you made a mistake, and you're sentencing an innocent man to slavery or suicide?

    this is just far, far too convoluted, and the risks are far too great to ever impliment in a just way. would it not be easier, less risky, and less vindictive to put them under house arrest, carefully analyze their psyche, and sort out any outstanding mental issues? it's certainly better than putting people to work in mines or asking them to kill themselves based on what a computer tells you to do.
    And what about the innocent people who could potentially slip past such a system that works on even such a low probability of being innocent? The same sort of system that occasionally kills an innocent on death row.

    The point is this is why I don't support the death penalty, or this slavery enforced by death system that you've come up with. Even with due process mistakes are made.
    If you care so much about such low probabilities, here's a solution:

    A repetitive murder offender (who had rehabilitation attempts) with less than a 0.5% of being innocent, would have to work for the society. If they refuse to work, they would be tortured into working (electroshock, water boarding, etc). If they still refuse, they would be placed back in their cell. There would be a limit as to how much they would be tortured, and for how long.

  23. Post #383
    Gold Member
    Boxbot219's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,266 Posts
    If you care so much about such low probabilities, here's a solution:

    A repetitive murder offender (who had rehabilitation attempts) with less than a 0.5% of being innocent, would have to work for the society. If they refuse to work, they would be tortured into working (electroshock, water boarding, etc). If they still refuse, they would be placed back in their cell. There would be a limit as to how much they would be tortured, and for how long.
    Are you real? No seriously I have no idea how to respond to this without basically saying what I have already said.

    Why are you so adamant in making a system so atrocious just to save money on a handful of criminals?

  24. Post #384
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    18,901 Posts
    If you care so much about such low probabilities, here's a solution:

    A repetitive murder offender (who had rehabilitation attempts) with less than a 0.5% of being innocent, would have to work for the society. If they refuse to work, they would be tortured into working (electroshock, water boarding, etc). If they still refuse, they would be placed back in their cell.
    are you fucking serious

    using cold-blooded torture to enforce a government-given mandate

    and you're telling me that your government works for the common man



    I hate to make this comparison but if you're seriously telling me this is a just way of running a state then you're on your way to being a buttfuck insane dictator

  25. Post #385
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    Are you real? No seriously I have no idea how to respond to this without basically saying what I have already said.

    Why are you so adamant in making a system so atrocious just to save money on a handful of criminals?
    Because it would save thousands of lives. That's why. How? By investing the profits in health care. It's OK to torture repetitive murderers into forced labor as long as it would save lives.

  26. Post #386
    Gold Member
    Boxbot219's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,266 Posts
    Because it would save thousands of lives. That's why. How? By investing the profits in health care. It's OK to torture repetitive murderers into forced labor as long as it would save lives.
    No it isn't. And again you are NOT going to make a profit with this system. The only way you could make a profit is if you completely unhinge it and give prisons the ability to do whatever the hell they want without any kind of checks and balances.

  27. Post #387
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    No it isn't. And again you are NOT going to make a profit with this system. The only way you could make a profit is if you completely unhinge it and give prisons the ability to do whatever the hell they want without any kind of checks and balances.
    "The only way you could make a profit is if you completely unhinge it and give prisons the ability to do whatever the hell they want without any kind of checks and balances."

    Gulags made profit which was reinvested. I'm OK with Gulags for repetitive murder offenders, but not for any other types of criminals.
    On top of that, Japan already runs such a system, and so does China. The evidence is simply not on your side.

  28. Post #388
    Gold Member
    Boxbot219's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,266 Posts
    Gulags made profit which was reinvested. I'm OK with Gulags for repetitive murder offenders, but not for any other types of criminals.
    You know what Gulags didn't have? Due process, and a lot of the times not even a trial.

  29. Post #389
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    You know what Gulags didn't have? Due process, and a lot of the times not even a trial.
    Mostly during the Stalin times. The rest of the time (ex: Khrushev rule), the Gulags had due processes. And let's not forget Japan and China. Japan has very good due processes, for example.

  30. Post #390
    Gold Member
    Boxbot219's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,266 Posts
    Mostly during the Stalin times. The rest of the time (ex: Khrushev rule), the Gulags had due processes. And let's not forget Japan and China. Japan has very good due processes, for example.
    Japan doesn't have a prison population that can even compare to America's.

  31. Post #391
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    Japan doesn't have a prison population that can even compare to America's.
    It's the per prisoner cost which counts, not the aggregate cost.

  32. Post #392
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    18,901 Posts
    Mostly during the Stalin times. The rest of the time (ex: Khrushev rule), the Gulags had due processes. And let's not forget Japan and China. Japan has very good due processes, for example.
    China is basically a human-rights-defiling hellhole in terms of due process so that would go against what you're saying, and Japan has a much lower jail population than that of America so you can't really use their system.

  33. Post #393
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    China is basically a human-rights-defiling hellhole in terms of due process so that would go against what you're saying, and Japan has a much lower jail population than that of America so you can't really use their system.
    "and Japan has a much lower jail population than that of America so you can't really use their system"

    It's the per capita legal worker number which counts, and not the aggregate one. And China has seen lots of improvements in its due process situation. And why are we talking about America? It's not the center of the world. Stop with your nationalistic shit.

  34. Post #394
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    18,901 Posts
    "and Japan has a much lower jail population than that of America so you can't really use their system"

    It's the per capita legal worker number which counts, and not the aggregate one. And China has seen lots of improvements in its due process situation. And why are we talking about America? It's not the center of the world. Stop with your nationalistic shit.
    I'm not even from America, I'm talking about it because it's got the most fucked prison system so I assumed you'd want to fix that rather than applying this to a country that actually has a working system going.

  35. Post #395
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    I'm not even from America, I'm talking about it because it's got the most fucked prison system so I assumed you'd want to fix that rather than applying this to a country that actually has a working system going.
    'I'm talking about it because it's got the most fucked prison system'

    Lol, are you serious?

  36. Post #396
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    18,901 Posts
    'I'm talking about it because it's got the most fucked prison system'

    Lol, are you serious?
    so you're saying all the rape, screwed recidivism rates, repeat offenders, horrid conditions, guards abusing their power and money wasted is the result of a functioning rehabilitatory system?

    are you serious?

  37. Post #397
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    so you're saying all the rape, screwed recidivism rates, repeat offenders, horrid conditions, guards abusing their power and money wasted is the result of a functioning rehabilitatory system?

    are you serious?

    It's bad, but not the worst one at all.

  38. Post #398
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    18,901 Posts
    It's bad, but not the worst one at all.
    it's fucked. that's what it is. maybe not the worst, but still totally freaking fucked.

  39. Post #399
    Gold Member
    DrasarSalman's Avatar
    August 2009
    10,753 Posts
    A repetitive murder offender (who had rehabilitation attempts) with less than a 0.5% of being innocent, would have to work for the society. If they refuse to work, they would be tortured into working (electroshock, water boarding, etc). If they still refuse, they would be placed back in their cell. There would be a limit as to how much they would be tortured, and for how long.
    How would slavery and torture teach the prisoners anything? A better idea would be giving them some sort of currency (probably cheaper to produce than real money) for the prisoners to use to buy themselves food and everyday items. If you take away the torturing part and make it more like a regular day job, it could teach the prisoners to work for their money. If you connect the prison to a factory for the prisoners to work in or let the prisoners have jobs to help the prison such as making food or cleaning, you may still help society. Creating a currency system which seems necessary to the prisoners combined with a day to day working habit, you both help society and rehabilitate the prisoners, it's a win-win.

  40. Post #400
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    How would slavery and torture teach the prisoners anything? A better idea would be giving them some sort of currency (probably cheaper to produce than real money) for the prisoners to use to buy themselves food and everyday items. If you take away the torturing part and make it more like a regular day job, it could teach the prisoners to work for their money. If you connect the prison to a factory for the prisoners to work in or let the prisoners have jobs to help the prison such as making food or cleaning, you may still help society. Creating a currency system which seems necessary to the prisoners combined with a day to day working habit, you both help society and rehabilitate the prisoners, it's a win-win.
    The thing is, some people can't be adjusted. That's why I said repetitive offenders. Some can't be adjusted in a timely manner.

    But yes, I believe that there should be a system of this kind (like in Japan, for example). If one could gain support to do some utilitarian action by using people's emotions, it should be done. For example, repetitive murder convicts and using the profits off their labor for health care, to save thousands of lives.