www.ditl.org

Ok ok. so i was wrong on the cost and most of the rest of it t

But I tell you what. Send the little fookers to me and I'll sort em' out for free. Surely putting someone to death can't carry such a huge cost, it seems stupid...I personally don't feel that prisoners and criminals should be allowed things like human rights especially when they're in violent crime. Rawr!

Hear, hear.

Teaos wrote:I've always been a big fan of bringing back Gladiator matches. A fight to the death and sell the TV rights to pay for the prisons.

If they brought back public executions you can bet crime rates would plumet.

That's the common wisdom, Monroe, but there have been studies that point to both yes and no.

The problem that would be suffered with gladiator matches or something is human rights movements crying because it is 'inhumane'. Never mind the fact that killing someone in the first place is inhumane.

Reliant121 wrote:The problem that would be suffered with gladiator matches or something is human rights movements crying because it is 'inhumane'. Never mind the fact that killing someone in the first place is inhumane.

All we need is someone who is generally recognized as a bastion of moral perfection to say something like "inhumane? people who act the way these criminals have acted, are not human."

then toss them some sharp sticks and we'll call it "lord of the flies take 2"

With regards to the cost of executing someone, it is true that the current methods of holding someone till their execution, then executing them via electric chair or lethal injection is quite pricey.
So why not use a cheaper method? For example, it could go something like:

Guy gets arrested.
Guy gets trial.
Guy found guilty, sentanced to death.
Appeal.
Held for short while in prison.
Guy loses appeal.
Handcuff him, drag him out back, put a gun to his head, insert one (1) 9mm round into his skull, and bill family for expenses.
Sell body to scientists and see what they can do with his organs, and stuff.

Quick, effecient, and cheap. Hell, you'd probably get quite a bit of money for an almost intact corpse, you may even regain the cost of the whole thing. And those organs could help others, so in death he actualy helps save people.

With regards to the cost of executing someone, it is true that the current methods of holding someone till their execution, then executing them via electric chair or lethal injection is quite pricey.
So why not use a cheaper method? For example, it could go something like:

Guy gets arrested.
Guy gets trial.
Guy found guilty, sentanced to death.
Appeal.
Held for short while in prison.
Guy loses appeal.
Handcuff him, drag him out back, put a gun to his head, insert one (1) 9mm round into his skull, and bill family for expenses.
Sell body to scientists and see what they can do with his organs, and stuff.

Quick, effecient, and cheap. Hell, you'd probably get quite a bit of money for an almost intact corpse, you may even regain the cost of the whole thing. And those organs could help others, so in death he actualy helps save people.

MetalHead wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:The problem that would be suffered with gladiator matches or something is human rights movements crying because it is 'inhumane'. Never mind the fact that killing someone in the first place is inhumane.

All we need is someone who is generally recognized as a bastion of moral perfection to say something like "inhumane? people who act the way these criminals have acted, are not human."

then toss them some sharp sticks and we'll call it "lord of the flies take 2"

Do you think the fact that murderers being inhumane will stop human rights activists. There will always be opponents to a point of view. The Death sentance should be reinstated here. But Gladiatorial combat. Barbaric!!

Rochey wrote:Quick, effecient, and cheap. Hell, you'd probably get quite a bit of money for an almost intact corpse, you may even regain the cost of the whole thing. And those organs could help others, so in death he actualy helps save people.

I sincerely hope you never find yourself wrongfully accused whilst in the jurisdiction of the kind of legal system you hope to impose on others.

I did put in an option for an appeal, or re-trial in there. If you get found guilty twice, then you likely are guilty. And at least if you're wrongfuly sentanced, you wont be waiting for years for it to happen, and it's all over fairly quickly and painlessly.

Rochey, Reliant: I really, really, really hope you're joking...


While we're at it, why save the death penalty for extreme crimes? All those criminals clogging up our jail systems...do you have any idea how much money it costs to keep all of them? But if we make all crimes punishable by televised gladitorial combat, then the government could actually make a profit on it! It's perfect!

By the way, anyone remember Ancient Rome? Didn't think so...

Hang on...I'm disagreeing with Rochey....Aren't I?

Rochey wrote:I did put in an option for an appeal, or re-trial in there. If you get found guilty twice, then you likely are guilty. And at least if you're wrongfuly sentanced, you wont be waiting for years for it to happen, and it's all over fairly quickly and painlessly.

You might want to look into what happened on Death Rows across the US when DNA testing became available. People who had spent years going through appeal after appeal, who prosecutors touted as being your "absolutely guilty" few... well it turned out they hadn't done a damn thing after all.

In the UK we had a bunch of irish terrorists. Open and shut case. We had bags of forensic evidence, we had confessions, you name it. They spent sixteen years in prison. And guess what? Innocent to the last man. Turns out the police just made the confessions up. They literally took statements that said "I am not guilty!" and rewrote them to read "I am guilty." The traces of plastic explosives on their hands turned out to be off the backs of playing cards.

As I say. I sincerely hope you are never wrongly accused of a crime. And if you are, I sincerely hope you have the benefit of all the legal protections that you would take away from others.

Peabody wrote:Rochey, Reliant: I really, really, really hope you're joking...

While we're at it, why save the death penalty for extreme crimes? All those criminals clogging up our jail systems...do you have any idea how much money it costs to keep all of them? But if we make all crimes punishable by televised gladitorial combat, then the government could actually make a profit on it! It's perfect!

By the way, anyone remember Ancient Rome? Didn't think so...

I'm joking with regards to re-starting the gladitorial combat, I thought that was apparent.

Graham:
*shrug*
You have a very good point there, and I know of that partiular case myself, but would the advent of DNA testing not decrease the margin of error by quite a good bit?