Death penalty should only be for the worst offenders. The habitual violent felons that judges in this state can't seem to keep locked up until they've eventual killed multiple people.
The majority of sane residents are in favor of the death penalty. What the question should be is "What type of crimes should these jerks be put to death for"?
I'm going to disagree on embezzlement/fraud though...if we fry Madoff, then he can't work to pay off what he stole. People like him belong in a labor camp.
While I agree that is something that is a problem in our system the burden of proof on this would be very difficult to over come on this particular issue. We do not arrest enough people who intimidate witnesses exactly because it is so hard to prove. I could see this line being used only against those that the Government wants put away anyway for one reason or another. Comparatively it is actually easier in many cases to prove murder and/or rape as marks are left behind, footprints, fibers, other items. Witness intimidation can be as simple as driving past the person house or showing up in court... are we going to start putting people to death for driving past a witnesses house? What happens when it really is an accident? I feel that your jumping over a few hurdles here and should start by arresting and putting these people who do that in prison first before we start executing people.
Would the death penalty be more cost effective for Massachusetts then life in prison?
but neither option addresses that question, just whether or not people feel that the death penalty is appropriate. This is a poorly constructed poll, especially since there is research that shows that the death penalty is actually more expensive than life without parole.
how about some solutions and funding thrown to rehabilitation? how about finally releasing the thousands of prisoners we hold on low level drug offenses? how about we invest our money into homelessness and mental illness, two things that will reduce the prison population?
your poll shows and obvious bias and a lack of true awareness of some of the complex issues that surround the prison system and the criminal justice system in general.
Yes, money into rehabilitation, some changes in simple drug possession being a jailable offense, money into prevention (mental health services, parenting education, better schools, vocational training, etc.). Prisons being overcrowded is a symptom, not a disease.
Yeah More prisons VS killing people... no other options. I would agree that maybe there should have been a third option. Things like electronic monitoring of low level convicts, some of these guys are not a real threat to society but need to be pay their time, let them do it at home if possible. Low level drug offenses not involving sale or distribution should not lead to jail either.
Somehow I do not believe that the death penalty would lead to empty jails. Even places like Texas only pull the plug on a handful of people a year at most AND those people need extra room and attention which includes, I love this, suicide watch! Even if you add in the people in our jail system who would otherwise be candidates for the death penalty, people who in theory would be deterred from those crimes, they only make up a small portion of the jail population.
The Death Penalty debate is silly as it costs more to put someone to death then keep them in jail for the rest of their lives. It is all about revenge not justice. In my opinion anyone who would be put on the death list should just be kept in jail for life and be given just the basics. I think a basic life with no internet, tv or other social activities and basic bland food would be a good punishment, plus if they happen to turn out to be innocent they are still alive.
for white-collar criminals who destroy lives by stealing retirement funds that results in the death or suicide of a client.
for politicians who receive bribes and lie if someone dies as a result of the crime.
for health insurance executives who cause a death by refusing to pay for a legitimate claim.
Once these become capital crimes, I will consider others.
Erm. Stupid question. Its not like execution is free either, by the time you get done with all the appeals, doctors, and administrata you end up paying just as much or more.
I'm hoping this is just a joke (albeit in poor taste). The question is dubious, since their is no debate about which is less expensive (life in prison is less expensive). That is a fact. People can argue for or against the death penalty on whether it prevents people from committing crimes, but not against the fact that execution is more expensive than life in prison.
The question shouldn't even hinge on cost. The legal and court costs of an execution generally exceed that of keeping a prisoner for life. Of greater concern is the irreversibility of death and the barberic nature of a society that would execute anyone.
What about reforming laws so that fewer are jailed for non-violent offenses? What about reforming jails so they become a place where prisoners are taught useful skills and allowed to participate meaningfully in the economy instead of just networking themselves deeper into crime?
The higher costs of the death penalty in America and Western Europe are quite well-known. This is why even the most extreme advocates for the death penalty don't even touch the 'cost is lower' argument. Seriously, go look at any organization advocating the death penalty and they will always favor the stronger argument that it may lower crime rates.
The places where the death penalty is cheaper are countries (often dictatorships) where citizens lack basic protections against the government and where laws that protect individual rights and liberties are little to non-existent. Only there is incarceration more costly than just sentencing someone to death, with no chance at appeal, no due process, and have them killed within a week. I don't think we want that, and but if you want cost efficiency that's the direction we must move towards.
Methinks the OP should have done a tad more research to have a more informed and accurate poll.
I think people have forgotten just how expensive it is to put one to death. Legal appeals, etc.. Plus this country is 2nd of the "first world nations" in executions. Just behind China. Is that what we really want?
It wouldn't make much of a difference as far as cost. Most states only kill a handful of people each year, if any at all. This is always after years of appeals.
Cost should not be a factor in deciding death penalty.
It has been repeatedly noted that many of these states persist in killing the wrong people. In Illinois, a group of college students uncovered such numerous and compelling doubts about the guilt of people on death row, even a pro-death penalty Republican governor suspended all executions.
But hey, no nasty lawsuits if the innocent are killed, rather than incarcerated.
There's a reason behind why anyone is committing a crime, there is some sort of anger or fun involved. I am of a mixed view, few crimes should be dealt with providing the criminals with counseling and releasing them for a year and constantly monitor them. Few crimes I would say, deserve death sentence but keeping everyone all their life in a prison is really a waste. Some do deserve it but not everyone. Deal with cases individually.
This is Mark Hostetler the person who commented above you, I would like you to remove my link from that comment since I am not registered on this site so I can't edit it, I would be more glad if you keep just my comment here without any links. I don't mean to offend anyone or be labeled as a spammer.
Because it was a link to his real estate business...in Nevada. This is a Boston-based, Boston news discussion website. Eeka's blog is her personal blog about her life here in the Boston area.
There's a big difference there. I'm not a huge signature fan for this website anyways, but what Eeka does and what Mark did are two different things.
Less importantly, as far as I could tell, the "maybe yes, maybe no" generic answer was about one step above the obvious spam where the spammer just cuts and pastes previous discussion and then throws in a link. (I figured it wasn't the normal kind of spam, so I didn't mark it the way I usually do)
Comments
this is a poorly constructed poll
and should be deleted, or have other alternatives added to the two given.
Option three
3) this is a stupid poll that doesn't properly address the question asked.
Poorly constructed sentence too?
Shouldn't be "...THAN life..."? Life in prison after you kill 'em is really kind of a waste.
What Ron Newman said. It's
What Ron Newman said. It's not that cut-and-dry (and this is the opinion of someone who doesn't have a solid stance on the death penalty).
Seriously, we can't go around killing people as a society because they cost too much.
Death penalty should only be
Death penalty should only be for the worst offenders. The habitual violent felons that judges in this state can't seem to keep locked up until they've eventual killed multiple people.
That's basically how I tend
That's basically how I tend to feel.
death penalty
The majority of sane residents are in favor of the death penalty. What the question should be is "What type of crimes should these jerks be put to death for"?
The list
-Murder
-Rape
-Witness intimidation
-Armed robbery
I'm going to disagree on embezzlement/fraud though...if we fry Madoff, then he can't work to pay off what he stole. People like him belong in a labor camp.
Re: The list
-Going below the speed limit in the passing lane.
Witness intimidation? While
Witness intimidation?
While I agree that is something that is a problem in our system the burden of proof on this would be very difficult to over come on this particular issue. We do not arrest enough people who intimidate witnesses exactly because it is so hard to prove. I could see this line being used only against those that the Government wants put away anyway for one reason or another. Comparatively it is actually easier in many cases to prove murder and/or rape as marks are left behind, footprints, fibers, other items. Witness intimidation can be as simple as driving past the person house or showing up in court... are we going to start putting people to death for driving past a witnesses house? What happens when it really is an accident? I feel that your jumping over a few hurdles here and should start by arresting and putting these people who do that in prison first before we start executing people.
the question is: Would the
the question is:
Would the death penalty be more cost effective for Massachusetts then life in prison?
but neither option addresses that question, just whether or not people feel that the death penalty is appropriate. This is a poorly constructed poll, especially since there is research that shows that the death penalty is actually more expensive than life without parole.
Wording
It should be "than" not "then." You are more likely to be taken seriously if you can construct a sentence properly.
so the answer to overcrowding....
... is to kill the prisoners?
how about some solutions and funding thrown to rehabilitation? how about finally releasing the thousands of prisoners we hold on low level drug offenses? how about we invest our money into homelessness and mental illness, two things that will reduce the prison population?
your poll shows and obvious bias and a lack of true awareness of some of the complex issues that surround the prison system and the criminal justice system in general.
I couldn't have said it better myself
Yes, money into rehabilitation, some changes in simple drug possession being a jailable offense, money into prevention (mental health services, parenting education, better schools, vocational training, etc.). Prisons being overcrowded is a symptom, not a disease.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Yeah More prisons VS killing
Yeah More prisons VS killing people... no other options. I would agree that maybe there should have been a third option. Things like electronic monitoring of low level convicts, some of these guys are not a real threat to society but need to be pay their time, let them do it at home if possible. Low level drug offenses not involving sale or distribution should not lead to jail either.
Somehow I do not believe that the death penalty would lead to empty jails. Even places like Texas only pull the plug on a handful of people a year at most AND those people need extra room and attention which includes, I love this, suicide watch! Even if you add in the people in our jail system who would otherwise be candidates for the death penalty, people who in theory would be deterred from those crimes, they only make up a small portion of the jail population.
The Death Penalty debate is silly as it costs more to put someone to death then keep them in jail for the rest of their lives. It is all about revenge not justice. In my opinion anyone who would be put on the death list should just be kept in jail for life and be given just the basics. I think a basic life with no internet, tv or other social activities and basic bland food would be a good punishment, plus if they happen to turn out to be innocent they are still alive.
Troll poll. This is
Troll poll.
This is Universal Hub, not a talk radio pissing contest. Not that we don't get pissing contests when the content is actually Boston-related.
Death Penalty
for white-collar criminals who destroy lives by stealing retirement funds that results in the death or suicide of a client.
for politicians who receive bribes and lie if someone dies as a result of the crime.
for health insurance executives who cause a death by refusing to pay for a legitimate claim.
Once these become capital crimes, I will consider others.
Erm. Stupid question. Its
Erm. Stupid question. Its not like execution is free either, by the time you get done with all the appeals, doctors, and administrata you end up paying just as much or more.
I'm hoping this is just a
I'm hoping this is just a joke (albeit in poor taste). The question is dubious, since their is no debate about which is less expensive (life in prison is less expensive). That is a fact. People can argue for or against the death penalty on whether it prevents people from committing crimes, but not against the fact that execution is more expensive than life in prison.
death penalty
The question shouldn't even hinge on cost. The legal and court costs of an execution generally exceed that of keeping a prisoner for life. Of greater concern is the irreversibility of death and the barberic nature of a society that would execute anyone.
Having the death penalty,
Having the death penalty, "then life in prison," would definitely not be cost-effective, and would start to smell after a while.
What an absurd over-simplification...
What about reforming laws so that fewer are jailed for non-violent offenses? What about reforming jails so they become a place where prisoners are taught useful skills and allowed to participate meaningfully in the economy instead of just networking themselves deeper into crime?
The higher costs of the death penalty in America and Western Europe are quite well-known. This is why even the most extreme advocates for the death penalty don't even touch the 'cost is lower' argument. Seriously, go look at any organization advocating the death penalty and they will always favor the stronger argument that it may lower crime rates.
The places where the death penalty is cheaper are countries (often dictatorships) where citizens lack basic protections against the government and where laws that protect individual rights and liberties are little to non-existent. Only there is incarceration more costly than just sentencing someone to death, with no chance at appeal, no due process, and have them killed within a week. I don't think we want that, and but if you want cost efficiency that's the direction we must move towards.
Methinks the OP should have done a tad more research to have a more informed and accurate poll.
I think people have
I think people have forgotten just how expensive it is to put one to death. Legal appeals, etc.. Plus this country is 2nd of the "first world nations" in executions. Just behind China. Is that what we really want?
It wouldn't make much of a
It wouldn't make much of a difference as far as cost. Most states only kill a handful of people each year, if any at all. This is always after years of appeals.
Cost should not be a factor in deciding death penalty.
One Problem
It has been repeatedly noted that many of these states persist in killing the wrong people. In Illinois, a group of college students uncovered such numerous and compelling doubts about the guilt of people on death row, even a pro-death penalty Republican governor suspended all executions.
But hey, no nasty lawsuits if the innocent are killed, rather than incarcerated.
There's a reason behind why
There's a reason behind why anyone is committing a crime, there is some sort of anger or fun involved. I am of a mixed view, few crimes should be dealt with providing the criminals with counseling and releasing them for a year and constantly monitor them. Few crimes I would say, deserve death sentence but keeping everyone all their life in a prison is really a waste. Some do deserve it but not everyone. Deal with cases individually.
Regards
Mark Hostetler
Way to say nothing, spammer
Way to say nothing at all except link to your RE firm.
Hello Kaz, This is Mark
Hello Kaz,
This is Mark Hostetler the person who commented above you, I would like you to remove my link from that comment since I am not registered on this site so I can't edit it, I would be more glad if you keep just my comment here without any links. I don't mean to offend anyone or be labeled as a spammer.
Thanks a ton buddy :)
Regards
Mark Hostetler
Done
Link removed.
I for one did not consider
I for one did not consider it spam...
We have a member here who uses a pink cement mixer on every post she posts as a way of pushing her blog...
Why I did
Because it was a link to his real estate business...in Nevada. This is a Boston-based, Boston news discussion website. Eeka's blog is her personal blog about her life here in the Boston area.
There's a big difference there. I'm not a huge signature fan for this website anyways, but what Eeka does and what Mark did are two different things.
Less importantly, as far as I could tell, the "maybe yes, maybe no" generic answer was about one step above the obvious spam where the spammer just cuts and pastes previous discussion and then throws in a link. (I figured it wasn't the normal kind of spam, so I didn't mark it the way I usually do)
Death Penalty. Lets talk!
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/death-penalty-debate-in-massachusetts