Death Penalty Vote

[brewer]

Keeping the death penalty is up for vote in my state. The legislature passed a repeal in May but the governor vetoed, hence the vote. 

I've got an idea on how I will vote but thought I give you the chance to bring up pro or con issues/reasons that I may not have considered. FYI, the current method is lethal injection. 

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.reso...eID=002000

[The Grand Nudger]

We don't -need- to execute people, we kill innocent people accidentally (and on purpose, ffs), it costs us more to kill them than it does to incarcerate them, and it can't be undone or overturned.  Pretty sure that's every base covered.

[chimp3]

Individuals are only allowed to take life in self defense. The state should be limited in the same way.

[c172]

My state is California, and it seems like they never execute anyone (13 times since 1976. Pointless). So, even though I am in favor of capital punishment being an option for murder or for aggravated rape, I am voting to repeal the DP in California.

[Gemini]

Repeal. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

[abaris]

FYI, the current method is lethal injection. 

The method is as irrelevant as personal feelings on the matter. I always keep saying, if someone hurt one of my loved ones - even my dog - I can't guarantee what I would do to them. But you have to make a distinction between what you would do as a person and what you want the authorities of your state to do in a ritualized manner.

In my book, the task of any given state is to keep society safe. That can be achieved just as well by locking offenders up and throw the key away.

Apart from that, my reasons for being against capital punishment.

1) It's irreversible. There's always a margin of error, and (without looking up the particular numbers right now) 4 to 5 percent get off death row because of error. In all probability there are innocents that don't get off and get executed.

2) It never served as a deterrent. Offenders don't take into account being caught and put on trial.

3) In the case of the USA, it costs more than locking them up. If someone argues for quickening the process, see number 1.

4) The process always was inhumane. Regardless of the method being used. It only serves to satisfy a populous need for revenge. Mostly of people who haven't suffered by the hands of the particular offender.

[Jackalope]

The so-called "justice" system in this country appears to be more concerned with retribution than rehabilitation. I reject that view, and that goes for non-capital offenses as well. I reject it as barbaric.

[Minimalist]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

An August 2016 study of the costs of Nebraska's death penalty by Dr. Ernest Goss, a Creighton University economics professor who founded the conservative think tank, Goss & Associates, found that the state spends $14.6 million per year to maintain its capital punishment system. The study, The Economic Impact of the Death Penalty on the State of Nebraska: A Taxpayer Burden?, also estimated that each death penalty prosecution cost Nebraska's taxpayers about $1.5 million more than a life without parole prosecution. Conducting a meta-analysis of cost studies conducted across the country, Dr. Gross estimated that the death penalty costs states with capital punishment an average of $23.2 million more per year than alternative sentences.

I'm sure the states could find better things to do with the money.... except Kansas which would just give it to rich fucks.

[vorlon13]

I'm not sure that the method is irrelevant . . . .

[Jesster]

I used to have mixed feelings about the death penalty. It's pretty clear to me now that it has nothing to do with justice. It's just an emotional response to crime, which is the only reason I was confused about it for so long.