What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
339 Comments
- inactive, on 02/22/2009, -21/+66Ok, i'm going to understandably get a lot of digg downs for this - but I don't care:
Some people cannot be rehabilitated. Whether by mental defect or by environmental factors, there are people in the prison population who have committed crimes so heinous - where there is no doubt of their guilt - that to keep them fed and housed for decades on the taxpayer dollar is an abomination of justice (and not just in the legal sense). The only reasons executions are so expensive is because of the strung out appeals process, even in cases where there is no doubt of guilt. These people gave up the right to decide how their lives will be used when they took the live(s) of others. If even just one additional life can be saved by the deterrent effect of capital execution, then strap them in and pull the switch. It's far better for society than any purpose they can serve while sitting in a cell all day. - quantumd, on 02/23/2009, -27/+50And I or no one else should be forced to pay to feed, and house, murderers...
- DephexTwin, on 02/22/2009, -5/+27That is Very interesting And informative.
- baggler, on 02/23/2009, -10/+30It costs more taxpayer money to kill someone, because of the appeal system.
- mbtria, on 02/22/2009, -9/+28State leaders support the death penalty because its a litmus test for many voters who support the death penalty, but not for those voters who oppose to it. So politicians see themselves as gaining more by supporting it than not supporting it.
There are also those pols who seem to get a vicarious thrill out of having that power over another human being. Many of this type of sociopath are also in favor of torture, at home as well as abroad. - Fabbyfubz, on 02/23/2009, -2/+16We make a movie based off of his stories.
- inactive, on 02/22/2009, -12/+26And if just one innocent person is put to death, your entire argument is thrown out the window.
- UberNick, on 02/23/2009, -3/+16I would happily pay my taxes to keep murders off the streets. What you should be outraged about is the 1000's of times more to enforce and incarcerate over arcane drug laws.
- supercandy, on 02/22/2009, -29/+41Japan still has capital punishment. It never is really attacked by the European Elite or the anti-USA establishment on this issue.
Some crimes are so ugly, to provide three meals a day in a prison for only 30 some years, seems contradictory to the term punishment.
In many studies by Partisans, they have tried to deny the level of 'deterrent' of intense penalties such as capital punishment. If having the death penalty on the books, saves just one life, then it is worth it, even if it is never used (as often is the case in the USA with the right to appeal).
But when one studies the relaxing of such penalties in a number of other societies, including Europe, you can clearly see the rise of criminal behavior, including murder rates.
I will never forget, reading about a killer, who took the life of some in the most vicious manner, by traveling to a State that did not have the death penalty. This monster was willing to murder and torture of young women, if he knew his potential risk was life in prison. He was not going to kill in a State that could possibly execute the murderer for his crime.
The USA has such an incredible justice system in context to the rest of the Globe, with numerous rights that is admirable, including the right to appeal, to have a jury of peers, legal representation, etc.
Some are thinking of emotion, and the very partisan expression of those in Hollywood have not provided a very clear, objective review of the subject. - slowth, on 02/22/2009, -1/+13Is death reversible? It's easier to unlock a prison cell than reanimate a corpse.
Conservative support of the death penalty is striking. Many consider themselves Christians, but they choose to disagree with those instructive parts of the Bible. Literalism has its limits, I suppose.
- MacEnvy, on 02/23/2009, -4/+15I find it incredibly hypocritical that you, supercandy - who doesn't trust the government to properly administer even social services - find it appropriate for the same government to be given the power of life or death over its citizens.
More cognitive dissonance form the far right wing. - inactive, on 02/22/2009, -6/+16 Er, convicted doesn't necessarily mean they actually committed murder(s). The reason people oppose the death penalty is because the justice system is not perfect and people have been put to death and subsequently proven to be innocent years later. If one believes that abortion is immoral because it is the premeditated termination of "innocent" life, and that the death penalty remains moral because the life being terminated is devoid of "innocence." you're not taking into account not everyone on death row is guilty. But does a fetus who cannot live without its mother have the right to life? Or does that mother who is supporting that fetus have the right to determine life or death? Maybe I'm a little cold hearted, while a fetus is biologically human, until it's capable of living outside the womb, which around 24-26 weeks after gestation, I don't see it as a person with rights. It's essentially a parasite and 99% of abortions are done well before the 24-26 week period and only if the mother's life is in danger is it performed after. Besides what about the millions of starving, abandoned, neglected children in the world?, yeah don't care about them because you're too busy picking up glitter markers from Wal-Mart for your latest "BURN IN HELL, BABY KILLER" poster.
- IgorUnchained, on 02/23/2009, -4/+14Digg users have the ability to see police brutality videos all of the time. You get a chance to see and read how corrupt politicians are on both sides of the aisle. There are stories of innocent people being let out of prison after decades, because of DNA evidence.
Of all of the internet community, I would have given you the benefit of the doubt on this.
Cops lie...the system is flawed....the government cant grab it's ass with both hands....but yeah, lets let them decide who lives and dies!
I have been convicted, in a court of law, of a crime I didnt commit. It was barely a felony and was 12 years ago, but it is all I ever needed to see to understand that THOSE people shouldnt control who lives and dies.
We ALL KNOW that there are crimes that people should be killed for committing....but this isnt the country/government/system to carry that out without killing innocent people.
I would rather see guilty people allowed to live than innocent people put to death.
Either millionaires dont commit murder, or the system is horribly flawed. How many millionaires are on Death Row? - inactive, on 02/22/2009, -3/+13The condition of being human is not just anatomical, it is also related to intellectual, physical attributes and awareness. 60% of all joinings of sperm and egg to form a fertilized egg fail to become embryos, fetuses or babies. This is because the process of development requires that each stage occurs perfectly or biological mechanisms monitoring cell growth and disposition will trigger spontaneous death of critical cells and the embryo and is either ejected or absorbed inside the uterus. A non-viable embryo or fetus ends its existence before it reaches stages where I would call it a human being. At the point of a live birth, a mother has assumedly accepted her role as a mother and the responsibilities of raising a child. A fertilized egg is just that, an egg. That is, it has not passed through the biologically stages necessary to be considered a human being (fertilized egg, then a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a fetus, then baby). There is currently no technology capable of "raising" a fertilized egg without a human uterus, I think you're confusing storing eggs. So if that is one's argument, then one should lay thy crackpipe down.
- robdazomba, on 02/23/2009, -9/+19Pro-death penalty types, I have a question about your dilemma.
Most of you cling to a conservative view which says that the government should not have excess power. And yet, you argue that the government should have the ability to take someone's life away. How do you reconcile that? If you're in favor of the death penalty, are you not in favor of large government with excess power? I would say once the government has the power of life or death over its citizenry, it has pretty much all the power you can give it. And yet, you oppose that? Curious. - Swivelstick, on 02/23/2009, -15/+25No country.
- blindhammer, on 02/23/2009, -0/+9Oh come on. Didn't anyone see or read The Running Man? The solution is right there.
- inactive, on 02/23/2009, -3/+13Just a question. For the most part, I am against the death penalty, mainly because so many on Death Row have been exonerated by DNA. If we kill only one innocent person, then it isn't worth every guilty person we execute. But, what about the special case, where we know for a fact the person is guilty? What about Osama Bin Laden? I bet many opposed to the death penalty would suspend that position long enough to see him fry.
- j0en, on 02/23/2009, -10/+19Want to fix the prison sentences stop the drug war over 40% of prisoners are drug related.
- supferrets, on 02/23/2009, -9/+18The majority of appeals are used as delay tactics - if we limit the system to only trials and appeals necessary to proving one's innocence, then we can drive down costs.
That said, money should be irrelevant when we're talking about the public safety. - astorygirl, on 02/22/2009, -64/+73No civilized country should have the death penalty.
- inactive, on 02/22/2009, -4/+12There have been too many cases where we were certain of guilt and then evidence turned up showing otherwise. It's not that I care about the scum bags who really are guilty, it's just that our system has been shown time and time again to be imperfect. I mean, the standard is already "beyond the shadow of a doubt," and we still occasionally convict innocent people. You can't just say that there are some people where there is no doubt of guilt, because that technically applies to ALL convicts, even those who are actually innocent, at least in the eyes of the law.
- jimmies, on 02/23/2009, -12/+20No civilized country should have murderers either. So until we get rid of those....
- inigomntoya, on 02/23/2009, -1/+8Death row sentences?
- norman619, on 02/23/2009, -1/+8Leave him to his political biases.
- GQCarrick, on 02/23/2009, -8/+15My dad is a guard at a Maximum security prision here in NY, a famous one, and I guess I have a unique perspective on this topic since the topic often came up in ethics classes. I think the death penalty SHOULD stay in place. Murderers do not stop killing when they get to prison and they are still just as much of a threat when they get to prison. Just because the nice police officers and forensics put them in prision doesn't mean they stop being a threat. I have known prison guards who:
1. Have had ***** and piss thrown on them
2. Jaws broken because inmates wanted to get into prison gangs.
3. Shoulders dislocated breaking up fights between inmates.
4. An officer stabbed several times by an inmate with a shank.
5. An inmate who had AIDS that cut himself only to throw blood at the prison guards for the sole reason to infect them with AIDS also.
Not to mention that inmates often have a better life than most people on the outside. Up until about 5 years or so inmates in NY could get a FREE college education, and not just a bachelor's degree, they could get a doctorate and even become a lawyer. They get only the best prescription drugs, some generic drugs but they get a lot of prescription drugs and all their health care is paid for by the tax payers. There are no penalties for inmates that do not obey orders, most get a slap on the wrist and maybe some time in solitary confinement only to be released later to cause more trouble.
Prison is not a fun place, and murderers should be dealt the death penalty. If you don't think so, I invite you to go work in the prison for a month and experience what my father does, you will change your tune I imagine. - Grym11, on 02/23/2009, -0/+7Seriously, 99% of people have no idea what Libertarianism means. So many social conservatives are calling themselves libertarians because of the unpopularity of the GOP that the term is almost meaningless now.
And don't get me started on this "culture of life" ***** they're babbling about lately. Republicans act all self-righteous and passionate about the "innocent lives of the unborn," but strangely, never want to talk about the REAL innocent lives that are lost because our foreign policy screwups and reckless military adventurism. - aufte, on 02/23/2009, -1/+7"Sometimes people need to be helped, and sometimes people need to be shot."
- akchrs, on 02/23/2009, -9/+15"you argue that the government should have the ability to take someone's life away."
The death penalty is voted on by the people as a punishment. A jury of the people decides whether to convict someone. - inactive, on 02/23/2009, -1/+7People who commit crimes generally don't plan on getting caught. Thus, punishment is usually the last thing on their minds.
- inactive, on 02/23/2009, -2/+7That doesn't make sense. Why would the death penalty deter criminals? They've already shown that they have no respect for the law. Do you really think they expect to get caught?
- j0en, on 02/23/2009, -2/+7How can you be a pro-life libertarian. I thought libertarians wanted freedom of your body...choices and life.
- threemagic, on 02/23/2009, -3/+8The death Penalty isn't only paroled by Liberal judges It's across the board now
- robbiedo, on 02/23/2009, -2/+7FTA: This is the very disturbing "fact"
...at last count by the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, 130 innocent men placed on death row in 26 states over the last 36 years.
What is the acceptable non trivial number? - slowth, on 02/22/2009, -2/+7So to prevent their torture at the hands of sodomites, we should kill them?
Many of the above comments state that the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for heinous acts, while you seem to think imprisonment is worse than death. I'm getting mixed signals. - scallon, on 02/23/2009, -7/+12It costs more to kill them then keep them in jail. So I say jail them. Then if it later turns out they were innocent they are let go. If they are truly guilty then we save money. It's a win-win.
- Murdats, on 02/23/2009, -6/+11so you will improve society by using the eye for an eye tactic?
- inactive, on 02/23/2009, -0/+5Here's the thing. Killing an innocent person means that not only does that innocent person die, but also that a guilty person has gone free.
- azureskies88, on 02/23/2009, -4/+9Well, would you rather have your money feeding and housing murderers, or bestowing upon them the justice they deserve? I would much rather not have the death penalty, but I can understand both points of view.
- xixphz, on 02/23/2009, -0/+4Very low?
- inactive, on 02/23/2009, -1/+5Murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life with malice aforethought. I realize that you have strong feelings on the subject; however, respectfully, expanding the definition of the word as you propose only diminishes its meaning. It's like saying "You are raping me by looking at me funny."
My life may not be worth much, but I know plenty of people I would defend with my own life against an attacker, and I don't think it is fair to call that murder. And, like it or not, you are more safe at home at night because a lot of people do believe in self defense, and criminals do not want to risk their own lives in a confrontation if they can avoid it. (Unless you are unfortunate enough to live in a country where criminals are better protected by the government than they are in most U.S. states.) - inactive, on 02/23/2009, -2/+6Probably because correlation != causation. Next!
- Heymbit, on 02/23/2009, -3/+7However, no one in the US has been executed and found innocent later since the death penalty was reintroduced in the 70s.
So true, it would stink if someone was found innocent later, but our investigation system for people who will be executed is a lot better than people who aren't being executed, these people on risk of death row have the better lawyers, they have the countless appeals, the countless DNA testing, there is so little risk of an innocent person being executed that it's not worth saying we shouldn't do it because of the risk. By that logic we cannot have prisons ever as innocent people are prisoned
If someone spends their entire life in prison and dies there, a slow painful death, and is innocent, how much worse is that than being executed by the state?
One could argue that forcing someone into imprisonment for life is a form of torture, imagine if you were confined to one room for the rest of your life.
So what's the difference between capital punishment and life in prison without parole? (aka people who will NEVER leave prison legally). - Peekman, on 02/23/2009, -0/+4http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf
But to be honest it is very difficult to use statistics to prove the deterrence of violent crimes one way or the other. This is because the people who are deterred from committing murders rule themselves out of the statistics. So how can we predict how many crimes were prevented because of the punishment when those would-be criminals cannot be counted? - DiggsOnlyJew, on 02/23/2009, -7/+11If a pacemaker fails, should we throw medicine out the window as well?
- spriggig, on 02/23/2009, -0/+4http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall97/deathpen.html
"Last July, about 40 lawyers, judges, and legal organizations signed a petition asking the Illinois Supreme Court for a 1-year moratorium on setting execution dates so that an investigation could be made to find out why the state has sentenced so many innocent men to die. Written by Bowman, the request was filed as an amicus curiae brief, and asks the Court to create a special commission to be made up of highly qualified members of the criminal defense community, prosecutors, judges, academics, and other experts." - Spudster, on 02/23/2009, -0/+4Canada's homicide rate has steadily dropped after the repeal of the death penalty...
I really don't think the death penalty is much of a deterrent because most people aren't thinking about the practical consequences of an action when they do it. For me, life in prison and the death penalty are equally terrible consequences and I doubt the differences enters into the mind of would be killers. - inactive, on 02/23/2009, -0/+4That's when I said "certain of guilt", I mean absolute certainty. Like in the case where a crime is documented by video, dozens of witnesses, confession of guilt, etc.
- inactive, on 02/23/2009, -10/+14***** paragraph writers jesus...
A bullet is a lot cheaper than feeding & housing men & woman for life. - bungoman, on 02/23/2009, -0/+4I used to be a big fan of the death penalty until The Innocence Project in Texas and other states started to find dozens of wrongfully convicted men on death row or serving long prison terms. I'm not philosophically opposed to the idea of execution, but until we get a system that ensures only the guilty are convicted I just can't get behind it. I certainly hope blatant jury/prosecutor racism is no longer a problem, but it clearly was in the very recent past (see early to mid 1980's Dallas County), and it led to many innocent people being put in jail or on death row. I think everyone will agree life in prison as an alternative to the death penalty is still one hell of a punishment. At least that way if a person is later found to be innocent they still have a chance to be exonerated. Getting emotional about the crimes we feel deserve the death penalty is exactly what allowed us to overlook this problem for such a long time.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 359 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is