shouldn’t conservatives be cheering for lowering the number of death row inmates?
instead of cheering high numbers.
why do conservatives consider Texas’s record amount on death row inmates as a win?
they beat every state at the record amount of murderers. that’s a pathetic lose you people are proud of. whichever state has the record amount of abortions certainly isn’t getting any cheers from the left. that’s a tragedy. that’s why we want to provide social programs. so people wont have to resort to murder and thief just to make it to the end of their life.
My opinion has nothing to do with conservative v. liberal arguments. It is based on the death penalty system in action:
For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it isn’t effective in reducing crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.
The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. In 2004, the state of Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for starting the fire that killed his children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission found that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on flawed science. As of today, 138 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant (as in Willingham’s case) and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to vote to convict.
Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty
Costs, a surprise to many people:
Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. Since the stakes are so high, the process is far more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.
Crime reduction (deterrence):
The death penalty doesn’t keep us safer. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent.
Who gets it:
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn’t apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed??
Victims:
People assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty imposed. It isn’t necessarily so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported the death penalty in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.
It comes down to whether we should keep the death penalty for retribution or revenge in spite of its flaws and in spite of the huge toll it exacts on society.
Because Texas actually has the balls to put murderers to death for their crimes. None of this "rehab" BS.
References :
KKKONS CHEERED LIKE SEALS IN THE AUDIENCE FOR
OUTSOURCING AMERICAN JOBS TOO
References :
To add something to what you said: preventive measures are also a lot more cost-effective than solely reacting to a crime. It reduces the amount of future criminals, but also when it’s applied in the form of rehabilitation in prisons we will see that the amount of relapsed criminals will be less.
References :
Record amount of murders? I think Detroit has that number on lock down for the past 15 to 20 years?
References :
eye for an eye,tooth for a tooth
paybacks a mother trucker
References :
Excellent point you make, I might add… In most cases, it actually cost more, to kill them… Than it dose to house them, for life… Then of course, there’s always the chance… They’ve been wrongly accused…
References :
Aaah.. leave it to a liberal to make themselves look like an idiot by opposing getting murderers off the street. But then, since almost all murderers are liberals.. this could just be simple survival instinct on your part.
References :
I would guess that large states have a similar number of murders but since they
don’t have the death penalty, there’s no death row.
A trial next door to New York just ended for a man who raped and killed
a doctor’s wife and two young daughters.
(The killer and his crime buddy set fire to the house while the young girls
were still alive!)
I’m sure if the surviving doctor(who was beaten but escaped) was standing
in front of you YOU’D HAVE THE BALLS to tell him to his face
that you’re against the death penalty for his family’s killers.
You sound like the brave type.
References :
American conservatives have a few contradictory issues: they want to reduce crime, but are what they call "pro-life".
Yet it has been proved that the liberalisation of the abortion laws has been the main cause of the fall in crime in the 1990s.
References :
"Understanding why Crime Fell in the 1990s"
Journal of Economic Perspectives" 18, No. 1 (2004) by Steven D. Levitt
I’m all for lowering the numbers of death row inmates.
In the death chamber.
References :
I’ve always considered it a great irony: The ultra right doesn’t believe in evolution, but it’s the left that can’t accept the necessity of natural selection.
When you hear these crowds cheering for the death penalty, they’re certainly not cheering that these crimes were committed. It’s also not a "Yay death!" thing. It’s an emphatic response to the liberal non-solution of infinite chances for criminals who have already committed deeds that are beyond redemption in this life. What about the additional innocent victims who have been taken because a criminal was released because his right for a second or third or fourth chance was deemed more important? The recidivism rates do not lie. Liberals whine about Guantanamo and due process for terrorists who aren’t even United States citizens and have committed grievous war crimes against this country. They’re more concerned with our "cruelty" in how we treat these murderers. It’s totally backwards – and quite frankly, a lot of conservatives are just plain fed up with it. That’s why they cheer. It’s about making hard responsible choices for the benefit of society.
References :
My opinion has nothing to do with conservative v. liberal arguments. It is based on the death penalty system in action:
For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it isn’t effective in reducing crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.
The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. In 2004, the state of Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for starting the fire that killed his children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission found that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on flawed science. As of today, 138 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant (as in Willingham’s case) and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to vote to convict.
Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty
Costs, a surprise to many people:
Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. Since the stakes are so high, the process is far more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.
Crime reduction (deterrence):
The death penalty doesn’t keep us safer. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent.
Who gets it:
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn’t apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed??
Victims:
People assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty imposed. It isn’t necessarily so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported the death penalty in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.
It comes down to whether we should keep the death penalty for retribution or revenge in spite of its flaws and in spite of the huge toll it exacts on society.
References :