Terthna
Professional Lurker
I'd prefer to give them life in prison; but that's just me.
Child Trafficking in the Developing World and the West
- Thread starter almostinsane
- Start date
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
Why if I may ask a legitimate questins? Personally I see every reason to remove slavers and chimos. Let alone people that are both simultaneously.
Fleiur
Well-known member
Why should innocent people pay to sustain rapists and pedophiles?
Last edited:
Terthna
Professional Lurker
For several reasons. Firstly, I believe killing is wrong; even if that person is a monster. Secondly, there's always that tiny chance they're innocent; and if we execute them for something they didn't do, we can't undo that. Lastly, from a practical perspective, the death penalty is simply more expensive for the taxpayer than life imprisonment.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
For the same reason they have to pay far more to execute them; because things like that are what our tax dollars are for, and our only other option is to let them loose in our streets.
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
Better argument then I've genrally heard I'll give you that.
Fleiur
Well-known member
How expensive is a dozen bullets?
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
Cheaper then a reusable rope surley.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
It depends; how much is your own life worth to you? Because once that precedent is set, that we just execute people on the spot because someone thinks they deserve to die, then those bullets will eventually be used on you.
Fleiur
Well-known member
Well, who said to execute people on the spot? Some states in the US still have the death penalty. They don't go crazy with it.
Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
That's not true at all in fact most of the cost of capital punishment is appeals. If what you were saying was true no such appeals would exist. AKA your Objectively wrong
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Those appeals happen because of the chance that the person could still be innocent; they let them have so many appeals because there has to be absolutely zero doubt that they're guilty. Imagine if you've been accused of something particularly heinous, and that you were ultimately convicted; wouldn't you want every opportunity to prove your innocence? Because that's happened; people on death row have had their innocence proven due to evidence that later came to light.
Hell; one of the many, many things people criticize Kamala Harris for, is her trying to block evidence that ultimately exonerated someone who was going to be executed; are you saying you support that?
almostinsane
Well-known member
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the death penalty is too expensive due to the appeals dragging things out or the death penalty will be used wantonly.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
"It is of more importance to the community that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished....when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever" - John Adams
The cornerstone of the American legal system is built upon the principle that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer; and it is that principle, which makes it impossible for the death penalty to be a cheap and easy punishment to hand out.
We can't have it both ways? Well, I wouldn't have it any other way; to protect the innocent, the death penalty must be prohibitively expensive.
almostinsane
Well-known member
... I meant that you can't have your argument be both points because they contradict each other.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
What made you think it was? I've been arguing against the idea that the death penalty should be used wantonly, as Fleiur suggested, the whole time.
almostinsane
Well-known member
Okay. What makes you think that using the death penalty on pedophiles and rapists is wanton?
Fleiur
Well-known member
Where did I say I wanted people shot on the spot??
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Fleiur implied that we just execute them immediately after they've been convicted; completely bypassing the appeals process. True, they did later amend with this post:
But it doesn't make any sense as a clarification, because by suggesting the bullets it implies that we should execute them on the spot. The method of execution isn't the issue in terms of cost; it's the appeals process, and we cannot do away with that in any way.Well, who said to execute people on the spot? Some states in the US still have the death penalty. They don't go crazy with it.
Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia
Look, I'm against the death penalty period; for reasons I previously laid out. Killing is wrong, they could be innocent, and it's too expensive. That said, I understand why others are in favor of it, and I wouldn't argue that using it on pedophiles and rapists is wanton; what's wanton is doing so without giving them every chance to prove their innocence, above and beyond a single trial, and it is this which makes the death penalty so much more expensive than just locking them away for life.
Fleiur
Well-known member
I implied no such thing, Terthna. I thought that the high cost was in part due to the chemicals required for what is considered a humane death.
My position is that rape, trafficking and molestation merits the death penalty. There is debate on how many chances to appeal it they should have, but the price should be death.