Quote from: Mega Sceptile on April 19, 2015, 09:43:58 PM

Quote from: Shub-Niggurath on April 19, 2015, 09:40:14 PM

Quote from: Mega Sceptile on April 19, 2015, 09:39:10 PM

He deserves worse than death, he's a serial killer. Let him in with some of the most dangerous people on the planet, and let the inmates have their way with him until he rots.

Lol you have no idea what a serial killer is.

I don't give a fuck about the definition of a serial killing kiyo, he killed 3 people and injured more than 200. he's a monster and he deserves to rot.

Yeah, then he's not a serial killer...

again, who gives a fuck. I made my point, stop bitching over tiny details.

He'll probably get killed in prison anyways.

Well, yeah. So give him life in prison, and let his inmates tear him to pieces. People who want the death penalty get what they want, and the 8th Amendment won't be violated at the same time.

That's an opinion, and I disagree with it.

And an illogical disagreement when the cons outweigh the pros.

Lack of evidence =/= lack of correlation, and here it's a punishment, rather than a deterrent.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The death penalty has virtually no impact on murder rates, and the vast majority of criminologists do not believe it to be an effective deterrent. I don't know what else there is to say on this. It has spectacularly failed as a means to dissuade criminals.

Take a step back and think of this logically. Punishment's are essentially just deterrents. If the punishment has failed to curtail the behaviour being committed, then it has also failed as a punishment.

Okay, well memes aside, all criminal sentences are a result of 'muh justice'. You saying that isn't at all an adequate refutation of the idea that a guy that maimed hundreds of civilians and pleads not guilty doesn't deserve the harshest punishment available.

Solitary confinement and losing your personal freedom is a pretty harsh punishment. There are some who view death as the easier alternative to the latter, but I guess that's a route down subjectivity lane.

Alrighty, so either this is a non sequitur or you're claiming that Tsarnaev could possibly be innocent.

It's neither. Just illustrating the fallibility of capital punishment.

When citing something, it helps to actually quote what you're referring to. I can't find "90,000" in the text and searching for "per year" doesn't help. The conclusion also doesn't state anything like that.

I have another article that suggests death penalty cases generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty, and that doesn’t even take into account the cost of court personnel (page 20)

Death penalty incarceration outweighs lifetime incarceration in cost too, just to add a little addendum.

Regardless, the meting out of justice shouldn't be hinged on cost when comparing two viable alternatives

And why is that exactly?

Mordo, obviously the death penalty system is flawed and inefficient, but that's largely due to the need for certainty. In this case, there's no question Tsarnaev is guilty. We're not talking about solitary confinement, and we're not talking about the death penalty as a deterrent; I think the name itself exposes it as primarily a punishment instead of a deterrent.

The guy is responsible for several deaths and hundreds of maimed victims. If the court rules that he is to be sentenced to death, I'll support that, even in light of potentially higher costs, though the preponderance of what I've seen is that the cost for cases are higher, but often exclude cost of incarceration, and so far you've done nothing but link sites without actually presenting facts from those sites. I agree that death penalties cost more typically; I've argued that on this site. I don't agree with the death penalty as a punishment for average crimes including murder and rape. In this case, the case of terrorism resulting in hundreds of casualties, I would agree with it. We can talk about the fallacies of the current system all you want, and I'm not going to argue against those. This case is exceptional to those discussions, to me.

The crux of what a punishment attempts to do is essentially deterrence, though.

I don't agree with this. In a general sense we set punishments to persuade people from doing bad things, but in a courtroom setting where the punishment has clearly failed to deter an action, then the sole point of it is to punish. Life in prison clearly didn't deter the bombing, so should we be throwing it out, too?

And FYI, my recent links have directed you to the facts. It helps if you read my previous post.

I did, and I looked in your site. You made the claim that death penalty incarceration costs more than life in prison, and brief search through it yielded nothing of the sort. As I already stated at least three times in this conversation, I don't disagree that costs of death penalty trials cost more; I don't need more links for that. I would prefer links showing costs of incarceration in a comparison, which your second link doesn't do. And beyond that, I've said numerous times that the relative cost of a viable sentence shouldn't factor into the decision to carry it out, since that has already been weighed by the legislature.
 
For the third time, you can argue with me all day about costs, and I'll agree with you that to try a death penalty case costs more. What I am saying is that Tsarnaev's crime justifies the death penalty.

>mfw 5 people vote death penalty

Literally three scrolls down:

Quote

Costs of Incarceration: $1 billion since 1978:

An official within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation estimated that housing death row inmates costs California an additional $90,000 annually per inmate. Accounting for inflation and the number of inmates on death row each year since 1978, this estimate would indicate that CA has spent an additional $1.02 billion in housing death row inmates since 1978.

Again, it aids to the discussion if you actually read my links.

Okay, so this is what you should have quoted initially. It's called a citation. They're really neat. Don't link a long article and get indignant when I repeatedly ask you to pull out specific information you're using in an argument.

Anyways, that citation doesn't say anything about a $90,000 cost above a typical life sentence, it says it costs an additional $90,000 each. How much did it cost to house an inmate for life in 1978? This is what I'm talking about, an actual comparison. What you've linked is not useful, and it's obscenely outdated.

Quote

And beyond that, I've said numerous times that the relative cost of a viable sentence shouldn't factor into the decision to carry it out, since that has already been weighed by the legislature.

And again I ask you, why not, since it has utterly failed as a deterrence, has had innocent people killed, and has cost the taxpayer more in both incarceration and conviction?

You're asking me to relate cost to numerous other consequences, which is absurd. The cost of the sentence has nothing to do with the number of innocent people sentenced to death, nor the effect of deterrence.

Quote

For the third time, you can argue with me all day about costs

If you stop cherrypicking my posts and electing to ignore sections of my links, you'll notice that I have argued against the death penalty for more than just the rationality of cost.

I ignored the first link in that last post because, for what I believe is the fifth time in this thread, I'm telling you that I am not, nor have I ever, contested the fact that death penalty cases cost more than life sentence cases. I'm not ignoring sections of the links, I'm repeatedly asking you to make an argument instead of copying and pasting a link from Google and telling me to interpret yourself, as if it's my responsibility to make your argument for you. Regardless, you repeatedly come back to points that I have time and time against told you are irrelevant to our discussion.

You've made no compelling argument for why Tsarnaev should not be executed, except that sometimes innocent people are sentences to death and it may or may not cost more than a life sentence, which in the order of magnitude of millions of dollars is basically irrelevant. The guy bombed a marathon and maimed hundreds of people, and I believe among the available punishments, death is the most appropriate. Maybe someday in the future the death sentence will be revoked entirely; I hope we see that someday. But right now, for this case, I think he deserves to die.

Interpret it how you will, but I'm heading to bed and I probably won't continue this discussion because we seem to be talking about two separate facets of the issue, and we've repeated the same posts three times now.

Okay, so this is what you should have quoted initially. It's called a citation. They're really neat. Don't link a long article and get indignant when I repeatedly ask you to pull out specific information you're using in an argument.

I apologize. I (incorrectly) assumed you would have had the patience to take a minute or two out of your day to skim through an article (and in the case of my second link, pretty much a page or two) to at least signify a semblance of effort in trying to understand my position.

I'll keep it in mind next time I link you to empirical evidence.

Anyways, that citation doesn't say anything about a $90,000 cost above a typical life sentence, it says it costs an additional $90,000 each. How much did it cost to house an inmate for life in 1978? This is what I'm talking about, an actual comparison. What you've linked is not useful, and it's obscenely outdated.

It's roughly 50k after a few quick google scans.

You're asking me to relate cost to numerous other consequences, which is absurd. The cost of the sentence has nothing to do with the number of innocent people sentenced to death, nor the effect of deterrence.

You said cost is irrelevant to the viability of punishment, and I asked why not. Stop dancing around the question.

I ignored the first link in that last post because, for what I believe is the fifth time in this thread, I'm telling you that I am not, nor have I ever, contested the fact that death penalty cases cost more than life sentence cases. I'm not ignoring sections of the links, I'm repeatedly asking you to make an argument instead of copying and pasting a link from Google and telling me to interpret yourself, as if it's my responsibility to make your argument for you. Regardless, you repeatedly come back to points that I have time and time against told you are irrelevant to our discussion.

You asked me to provide evidence for incarceration costs, and I did. Don't throw your toys out the pram when I actually prove something that goes against your contentions.

You've made no compelling argument for why Tsarnaev should not be executed

That's because it isn't the argument I'm even positing.

I'm suggesting that the Death Penalty is a horribly inefficient means of punishment in our judicial system, and if it means seeing Tsarnaev remain alive for the rest of his life, then so be it.

except that sometimes innocent people are sentences to death and it may or may not cost more than a life sentence, which in the order of magnitude of millions of dollars is basically irrelevant. The guy bombed a marathon and maimed hundreds of people, and I believe among the available punishments, death is the most appropriate. Maybe someday in the future the death sentence will be revoked entirely; I hope we see that someday. But right now, for this case, I think he deserves to die.

All I got from this paragraph is that you want to maintain the death penalty simply for one guy.

Interpret it how you will, but I'm heading to bed and I probably won't continue this discussion because we seem to be talking about two separate facets of the issue, and we've repeated the same posts three times now.

No doubt through your inability to interpret my position.

if it were up to me I'd have him put in an electric chair but there's a twist, the electricity is controlled by a random time switch. the limit would be to 30 years so any time between that it could go off. loooooooool if the electricity doesn't kill him the suspense will

Quote from: gats.png on April 20, 2015, 05:57:31 AM

if it were up to me I'd have him put in an electric chair but there's a twist, the electricity is controlled by a random time switch. the limit would be to 30 years so any time between that it could go off. loooooooool if the electricity doesn't kill him the suspense will

But 8th Amendment. :^(

fuck the US constitution. give him to me, i'll do it

What should it be: fucking death.

What will it be: life in prison. Because people are fucking pussies

Rehabilitory imprisonment with a possibility of an indefinite sentence, similar to that Norwegian guy.

But then again, America really isn't into that rehab thing, so life imprisonment is prefferable in reality.

Rehabilitory imprisonment with a possibility of an indefinite sentence, similar to that Norwegian guy.

But then again, America really isn't into that rehab thing, so life imprisonment is prefferable in reality.

Eh, I'm just a bit skeptical on the rehabilitation part. I mean, he did kill 3 people and maim about 200. That crosses a lot of lines for rehabilitation. >_____>

I know, lolYahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/tsarnaev-middle-finger-photo-181020008.html

But he needs to stay in prison, death will glorify him. If he doesn't care about his sentence, it'll change soon enough.