How many strikes before your out?

[Crocoduck]

How many convictions does it take before you realize that you suck as a criminal?

[Stevil]

"I have known this man for 10 years. He will hurt again. I hope it's not my family and not yours but some family will suffer due to his release. Keep John in prison and away from us, I beg you. He will hurt again."

The above pretty much tells us all we need to know about this man.
If the people letting him out were made accountable, then they would think twice about unleashing this beast on society.

But our government in their infinitely wise ways, not only keep releasing him but they reward him

Gillies was one of four Mongrel Mob members paid $325,000 by the Crown in 2000 after claiming they were tortured and abused by guards at Hawkes Bay's Mangaroa Prison.

Which leaves me wondering, were any of Gillies' victims paid any money? There never seems to be financial compensation for the victims, just the criminals.

[Sweetdeath]

I'm not sure about incurring the cost of life imprisonment, I am quite happy to put him down.

I'm inclined to think the same.

I agree with you both.
Over crowding jail cells, free meals, t.v, etc. I dont want my taxes going to that.  Just kill the scum.

[Dobermonster]

And what about the innocent man on death row? Is his death worth the implied justice in killing the guilty?

That's the issue I have with the death penalty. Life imprisonment at least means that if someone is innocent, they still have time to find evidence, make their case, and not have to live every day in knowledge of their impending death.

[Stevil]

And what about the innocent man on death row? Is his death worth the implied justice in killing the guilty?

That's the issue I have with the death penalty. Life imprisonment at least means that if someone is innocent, they still have time to find evidence, make their case, and not have to live every day in knowledge of their impending death.

Over 100 convictions, do you think he has been incorrectly found guilty 100 times?

[Dobermonster]

That wasn't the point. The mere existence of the death penalty invites mistakes - and yes, mistakes have been made. You can't say "Oh, we'll only do it to the *really* guilty people", because every innocent man was at one time considered guilty. Does that make sense?

[Will]

I don't see how any civilized society could even contemplate the death penalty and gangs are an economic and social problem which can easily be prevented by a society concerned with prevention instead of punishment.

[Stevil]

That wasn't the point. The mere existence of the death penalty invites mistakes - and yes, mistakes have been made. You can't say "Oh, we'll only do it to the *really* guilty people", because every innocent man was at one time considered guilty. Does that make sense?

What if we restricted the death penalty to people who had been convicted of more than 10 serious crimes where people had been raped or hurt with a weapon. In this way a person convicted of raping 10 people would then be put down.

The alternative would be to either keep them locked up (at huge expense to society), or attempt to rehabilitate, let them out and hope they don't rape their 11th victim.

[Will37]

I don't see how any civilized society could even contemplate the death penalty and gangs are an economic and social problem which can easily be prevented by a society concerned with prevention instead of punishment.

I don't see why the death penalty is uniquely barbaric.

I think that in general the death penalty should not be an option.  It is too tinged with racism and inaccuracy.  But I think that the death penalty can be just.  Ratko Mladic deserves to die.  I don't think there is anything barbaric about taking him to the tallest tree in Bosnia and hanging him high. 

[Too Few Lions]

I don't see how any civilized society could even contemplate the death penalty and gangs are an economic and social problem which can easily be prevented by a society concerned with prevention instead of punishment.

I don't see why the death penalty is uniquely barbaric.

I think that in general the death penalty should not be an option.  It is too tinged with racism and inaccuracy.  But I think that the death penalty can be just.  Ratko Mladic deserves to die.  I don't think there is anything barbaric about taking him to the tallest tree in Bosnia and hanging him high. 

same goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.

[Crocoduck]

The alternative would be to either keep them locked up (at huge expense to society), or attempt to rehabilitate, let them out and hope they don't rape their 11th victim.

To execute or not: A question of cost?

"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.

Does the death penalty cost less than life in prison without parole?

Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said the following on June 7, 2010, in his testimony before the Pennsylvania Senate Government Management and Cost Study Commission, available at www.deathpenaltyinfo.org:

"The death penalty is the most expensive part of the system on a per-offender basis. Millions are spent to achieve a single death sentence that, even if imposed, is unlikely to be carried out. Thus money that the police desperately need for more effective law enforcement may be wasted on the death penalty...

The principal reason why the death penalty is so expensive can be summed up in one phrase: 'death is different...' Every stage of a capital case is more time-consuming and expensive than in a typical criminal case. Jury selection takes much longer; more mental health and forensic experts will be needed; two trials will be required - one for guilt and one for sentencing; and the appeals will be far more complex, focusing on both the conviction and the death sentence. Two attorneys are usually appointed for the defense, so that issues of guilt and sentencing can be separately explored. The prosecution has to respond with equal or greater resources since they have the burden of proof...There is no reason the death penalty should be immune from reconsideration, along with other wasteful, expensive programs that no longer make sense."

I don't know how I feel about the death penalty since I gave up my Bible centered world view. Truth is I'm unsure about a lot of things I used to feel very strongly about. However if the issue is one of cost I think there's plenty of evidence that execution costs a lot more than life in prison without parole. I also think it should cost more, much more because the burden on the state to prove their case should be very high.

[Dobermonster]

Another argument I ascribe to for keeping them alive is that we can study them. The most abhorrent crimes are made by people with abnormal minds - either psychologically or neurologically. If there's to be any hope that such minds can be understood and even corrected, we must have data and long-term research. In other words, even if life terms were more expensive than any variation of the death penalty, it can be considered as an investment in research that will, in the long-term, benefit society in terms of prevention and treatment. If we merely cull the abnormal without understanding it, then it is guaranteed that the culling will continue indefinitely.

[Stevil]

The cost of the death penalty is dependent on the legal system in place.
In USA, the cost is exorbitant, with appeals process and free legal representation.

In China, the cost is a single bullet, which gets charged to the family of the deceased.

These are both extremes, but my point is that the death penalty does not have to be expensive.

The cost of setting these people free, back into society to kill or rape again, is a far greater cost.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Also, keep in mind, with a life-time in prison, it's more likely that a murderer/scumbag might eventually disclose information that can help solve other crimes or lock other scumbags away.

If you kill a serial killer 3 years after he commits his crime, you extinguish the possibility that, after 40 years in jail, he might re-think informing the authorities about where he hid the rest of the bodies. There are a lot of revelations that have come from criminals who've been locked away for 20+ years. Once they're dead, everything they know is dead too.

[Crocoduck]

The cost of setting these people free, back into society to kill or rape again, is a far greater cost.

I agree that violent offenders shouldn't be allowed "back into society to kill or rape again". Thats pretty much a non-brainier. However I don't think the issue is one of if we don't Kill em we have to let them go. Life in the pen is not back into society. We can deal with them without killing them.

Now cost is a different issue. Yes we could make it cheaper for the state to kill people but should we? Do you trust the court system that much?

As an atheist and skeptic I believe in the axiom "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I think I would also put that on the state in a capital case. Extraordinary sentences require extraordinary evidence. Theres no mulligan with capital punishment so great pains need to be taken to make sure its the right choice. That just can't be done on the cheap.