Republicans are Soft on Crime

Yes, rape certainly is a crime. But shooting them (killing them) isn't a commensurate punishment for the crime. I agree that they shouldn't simply receive a reprimand; they should do prison time. But, death? No, I can't be convinced that's the proper punishment.

 

I think rapists are scum, too. I wouldn't have a problem throwing them in jail for the remainder of their lives. That wouldn't bother me at all. I'm against the death penalty, though so killing them, in my opinion, is not an option.

 

If it boils down to a monetary equation, the same argument could be made of the Jews killed in the Holocaust. Certainly Germany saved untold riches by killing them instead of supporting them, right?

So, yes, if it's only about money I can't argue that point.

 

Just extrapolating. If a government decides who to kill (in your argument it is rapists), who is next? I don't like thieves either. Why not kill them, too? It's cheaper than imprisoning them. Why not habitual drunk drivers? How about political dissidents?

 

Wow! I've never agreed with Okie so much in my entire forum life. Although the slippery slope argument isn't all that convincing. But given that (A) the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, (B) Believe it or not, the death penalty appeals process is very, very expensive, and (C) The death penalty is irreversible. Plenty of wrongly convicted people sat on death row and many of them were executed.

I hate rapists as much as anyone but a society that rids itself of undesirables by putting them to death is really no better than the way the Nazis practiced Eugenics. Incidentally, we are one of the few western countries that still has the death penalty.

 

So by being anti-death penalty, we are "pro-rape"? You mind telling me how that works?

I might as well say that if you are anti-welfare, you are pro-rape. No need to connect the dots.

 

My heart agrees with Peter T Davis, but my head agrees with CoinOKC. If it were as simple as standing pusbags up against a wall and putting them out of our misery, that would be one thing, but it hasn't been that simple in a very long time. As it is now, the death penalty is actually more expensive than life imprisonment (source, though there are plenty of others), so the fiscal argument is a non-starter. Then there's the issue of miscarriage of justice, which will be with us for a while yet. The very real possibility of wrongful conviction is a strong argument against the death penalty.

All that said, as noted above, a part of me remains unconvinced that the death penalty is always wrong, though in my opinion the way it's currently handled is definitely wrong.

 

Ok, heres where you and I differ where you'd think we shouldn't. I'm all for the death penalty. Why waste...yes, waste, taxpayer money keeping violent criminals locked up when a 50 cent slug could take care of the problem? Republicans are all about eliminating waste, I'm I'm with them on this one. Don't waste my money by protecting their wasted lives.

 

Why shouldn't I think your opinion might differ? Personally, I'm conservative but I share liberal views on some social issues (gay marriage for one) so why shouldn't you share conservative views on some issues, too?

I believe many people (conservatives AND liberals) view the death penalty as a fitting punishment for a capital crime. There's no doubt that "punishment" is definitely a strong argument in favor of the death penalty. I think the punishment should be very severe, up to life imprisonment, but not death. I agree with all the points JoeNation made in Post #11 (everyone take note of that since it's probably the only time you'll ever hear it).

As far as your remark about a "50 cent slug", are you saying that after the trial, you'd like to forego the appeals process and take him out and shoot him? Would you allow him even one appeal? Two appeals? Would you allow him to appeal to the Supreme Court in his state? How about the U.S. Supreme Court?

I don't think there are really any "50 cent slug" solutions (except shooting him as he's breaking into your home or raping a loved one). The initial trial itself can cost multiple thousands or even millions of dollars. If there is a mis-trial, another trial can be millions of dollars more. Then, if you're going to allow him to appeal, well... you get the picture.

Housing and feeding the guy is an expense we would have to be willing to accept in a society where the death penalty is not an option. Yes, this is certainly expensive, but we have to weigh it against the fact that we have executed people who were not guilty of the crime and we might do so again. In my opinion, that fact alone is worth the cost.

 

Trials, mis-trials and appeals are not unique to death penalty cases.

 

The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).” (Kansas: Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections)

 

And never mind the fact the the death penalty is applied disproportionally to minorities.

 

Most of the people accused of crime later found guilty were tried pre modern forensics technologies, before DNA testing. Lengthy, prolonged expensive trials are another example of government waste. I've heard people say the death penalty doesn't discourage crime. Yet, I bet it discourages it more than prison. Most prisoners are repeat offenders. Guess they aren't learning anything.