ADVERTISEMENT

Electric Chair or Firing Squad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Silver_Coconut said:
You seem to have lot to say about the system. Just questions for you, if you don't mind. How many people are in for life on non-violent offenses, and what are those offenses? How many innocent people are in prison? And how are you going to prevent organized crime in prisons?
Click to expand...
3,278 people are currently serving time for non violent crimes. At $20,000 per prisoner per year that’s $2 billion to keep them in jail for the next 30 years.

170 people sentenced to death have been exonerated vs 1,533 executions. So 1,533 excited + 2,500 on death row + 170 exonerated. That is unconscionable that 4% of death row inmates since 1973 have been exonerated. We also now know, thanks to DNA, 8 people were executed and later found innocent. Unconscionable!!!

The exact number is constantly changing but here is a great article from 8 years ago, with a very similar number. It was this article that made first me aware of the issue.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...s-prisoners-sentences-life-non-violent-crimes

More than 2,000 people have been realized from prison based on post conviction DNA. I’m not arguing 50% of our prisoners are innocent. I’m arguing that if you are innocent it’s almost impossible to get out. Conservatives estimate 2% of the prison population is wrongly convicted. Liberals like the ACLU estimate 10%.

Let’s take the low number. So roughly 46,000 people are likely innocent. At $20,000 per inmate per year we are paying $920 million per year to incarcerate innocent people on the low end. Not to mention the human toll on them and their families.

The question isn’t how many, one is too many. The question is why is it so hard to overturn?

https://people.howstuffworks.com/innocence-project.htm

I don’t think you can prevent organized crime in our prison system. I’m just making the point if you’re involved in organized crime on the outside, prison time is not a deterrent.
 
ToddFlanders said:
The death penalty, no matter the form, has never worked as a deterrent for murder.

As for the tax payers bill - inmates on death row cost the states more than a lifer (even with the shorter life expectancy). There is no savings.

It's never worked, but it makes some people feel safer, so we still have it.
Click to expand...
This why I am a proponent of the death penalty. In 1969 Charles Manson ordered the deaths of a number of people and in 1972 (I think he was convicted of the crimes) along with several members of his cult.

Charles Manson was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. After his sentencing he made the statement, almost boastfully, that one could have a life in prison, because he knew his way around in prison so to speak, because he had been in prison a number of times before his last conviction. Long story short, he lived to be 83. There are a lot of nice Christian people who don't live to be 83 or anywhere close to that age. I just don't think it's right for someone like Charles Manson to get to live to be 83, died November 19, 2017 when he ordered the deaths of a number of people who died in 1969.

The cost of the death penalty vs the cost of life in prison is irrelevant to me in these type cases.

I finished college in 1969 and that was a long time ago but yet Charles Manson gets to live until November 19th, 2017 and many people died in 1969 because he wanted to start a race war.

Yet, Charles Manson gets to live another 48 years after he orders the murders of nine people.
 
Last edited:
BigWillieCock said:
3,278 people are currently serving time for non violent crimes. At $20,000 per prisoner per year that’s $2 billion to keep them in jail for the next 30 years.

170 people sentenced to death have been exonerated vs 1,533 executions. So 1,533 excited + 2,500 on death row + 170 exonerated. That is unconscionable that 4% of death row inmates since 1973 have been exonerated. We also now know, thanks to DNA, 8 people were executed and later found innocent. Unconscionable!!!

The exact number is constantly changing but here is a great article from 8 years ago, with a very similar number. It was this article that made first me aware of the issue.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...s-prisoners-sentences-life-non-violent-crimes

More than 2,000 people have been realized from prison based on post conviction DNA. I’m not arguing 50% of our prisoners are innocent. I’m arguing that if you are innocent it’s almost impossible to get out. Conservatives estimate 2% of the prison population is wrongly convicted. Liberals like the ACLU estimate 10%.

Let’s take the low number. So roughly 46,000 people are likely innocent. At $20,000 per inmate per year we are paying $920 million per year to incarcerate innocent people on the low end. Not to mention the human toll on them and their families.

The question isn’t how many, one is too many. The question is why is it so hard to overturn?

https://people.howstuffworks.com/innocence-project.htm

I don’t think you can prevent organized crime in our prison system. I’m just making the point if you’re involved in organized crime on the outside, prison time is not a deterrent.
Click to expand...
So my next question is this: What would you change? We have a due process that is available to all citizens. You say it takes too long to overturn wrongful convictions, but I don't know enough to come to that conclusion. If overturning convictions was a simple process, it seems like there would be a lot more room for error, and it would cost a lot more money, as guilty individuals would be seeking overturned convictions (because its easy). A lot more resources would have to be dedicated to the process.

I'd hate to think an innocent person is being sentenced to death, horrific. I wonder if the advancement in DNA, forensics, and video evidence will help to mitigate wrongful convictions.
 
rogue cock said:
Most, if not all, European countries do not have the death penalty....neither does Canada.
Click to expand...

I would argue that we are not other countries. Our freedoms, customs, etc were won in a different manner than other countries.

One could and many do argue that our murder rate is so much higher in the USA than other countries because of our individual gun rights. And that may be so, but I got some news for everyone, we aren't giving up the rights to own guns in our country.
 
Silver_Coconut said:
So my next question is this: What would you change? We have a due process that is available to all citizens. You say it takes too long to overturn wrongful convictions, but I don't know enough to come to that conclusion. If overturning convictions was a simple process, it seems like there would be a lot more room for error, and it would cost a lot more money, as guilty individuals would be seeking overturned convictions (because its easy). A lot more resources would have to be dedicated to the process.

I'd hate to think an innocent person is being sentenced to death, horrific. I wonder if the advancement in DNA, forensics, and video evidence will help to mitigate wrongful convictions.
Click to expand...
Well due process is not quite accurate. In theory you are innocent until proven guilty (but we see that is not always true especially in high profile cases). But let’s go with it for now.

You might think that if new DNA evidence is found in a case, even after a person is convicted, it's automatically tested to be sure the right person is behind bars. But that's not the case at all. When someone who is already convicted of a crime wants to have new DNA tested, they must request permission from the prosecutor, explains Keith Findley, associate professor, University of Wisconsin Law School and former co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project.

If the prosecutor won't agree, the defendant must file a motion to have it tested, and in that case, it must fit certain requirements of the state's statute. That means questions like "would favorable DNA results create a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have been convicted at their original trial?" must be answered.

However, because the defendant is already convicted and in prison, they no longer have the right to a court-appointed attorney. So any incarcerated person trying to prove their innocence must pay for an attorney to file that motion or get help from an organization like the Innocence Project.

If and when DNA gets tested, it doesn't always immediately exonerate the innocent even if it's in their favor. Obtaining exoneration is a lengthy two-step process, according to Vanessa Potkin, director post-conviction litigation at the Innocence Project.

  1. First, the original conviction must be vacated if DNA or other evidence comes back in favor of the defendant. That means the judge sets aside the original guilty verdict.
  2. Then the defendant returns to pre-trial status, so it's as if they had never been tried and the original accusation remains.
For the wrongfully accused to be completely exonerated, either the district attorney or the court has to dismiss that indictment altogether. Usually, that is the result when there is new evidence of their innocence.

Even when there is DNA evidence it takes an average of 7 years from the time of the testing to release.

So what would I do? Like I said, if you had prosecutors be civilly and criminally liable for wrongful convictions there would be fewer to begin with. Secondly if DNA evidence exonerates a person, they are immediately released.
 
Freddie.B.Cocky said:
I would argue that we are not other countries. Our freedoms, customs, etc were won in a different manner than other countries.

One could and many do argue that our murder rate is so much higher in the USA than other countries because of our individual gun rights. And that may be so, but I got some news for everyone, we aren't giving up the rights to own guns in our country.
Click to expand...

We are middle of the pack when it comes to murder rate.
 
BigWillieCock said:
Well due process is not quite accurate. In theory you are innocent until proven guilty (but we see that is not always true especially in high profile cases). But let’s go with it for now.

You might think that if new DNA evidence is found in a case, even after a person is convicted, it's automatically tested to be sure the right person is behind bars. But that's not the case at all. When someone who is already convicted of a crime wants to have new DNA tested, they must request permission from the prosecutor, explains Keith Findley, associate professor, University of Wisconsin Law School and former co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project.

If the prosecutor won't agree, the defendant must file a motion to have it tested, and in that case, it must fit certain requirements of the state's statute. That means questions like "would favorable DNA results create a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have been convicted at their original trial?" must be answered.

However, because the defendant is already convicted and in prison, they no longer have the right to a court-appointed attorney. So any incarcerated person trying to prove their innocence must pay for an attorney to file that motion or get help from an organization like the Innocence Project.

If and when DNA gets tested, it doesn't always immediately exonerate the innocent even if it's in their favor. Obtaining exoneration is a lengthy two-step process, according to Vanessa Potkin, director post-conviction litigation at the Innocence Project.

  1. First, the original conviction must be vacated if DNA or other evidence comes back in favor of the defendant. That means the judge sets aside the original guilty verdict.
  2. Then the defendant returns to pre-trial status, so it's as if they had never been tried and the original accusation remains.
For the wrongfully accused to be completely exonerated, either the district attorney or the court has to dismiss that indictment altogether. Usually, that is the result when there is new evidence of their innocence.

Even when there is DNA evidence it takes an average of 7 years from the time of the testing to release.

So what would I do? Like I said, if you had prosecutors be civilly and criminally liable for wrongful convictions there would be fewer to begin with. Secondly if DNA evidence exonerates a person, they are immediately released.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a John Oliver report.
 
JGH 35 said:
I am opposed to the death penalty. Yeah, I know some of you are thinking, "What? The most conservative guy on GCC is opposed to the death penaly?" I'm not opposed to it due to the liberal line of thinking with regard to bleeding heart humanitarianism. It is because of a significant case that actually happened here in SC. A couple who owned a gas station were robbed and the husband was violently killed by these scumbags in front of his wife. If the death penalty could have been carried out immediately, no problem. But with our idiotic laws these scumbags are not executed for years. They go through a ridiculous appeals process that takes forever. In this particular case these scumbags went through years of appeals. Near the end of this process the court overturned the conviction and ordered a whole new trial. Not only did this poor woman and her family have to relive the most horrific day of their lives with every appeal, but now the nightmare starts all over again. Over this time, some witnesses had died, and some evidence lost. Not only is the nightmare not over with, but there became the very real possibility that these murdering scum could be let go entirely. Fortunately, they were convicted again and eventually executed, but why do we put victims and their families through such agony and torment for years? Wasn't the initial life altering tragedy enough? Why do we set up a system that could allow the scum of society to walk free, simply due to the passage of time and a dysfunctional legal system? Convict the bastards and throw them in a hole never to see light of day again. It is far cheaper to do that and feed them beans and weenies every day than to go through the enormous costs of appeal after appeal, and then a new trial.
Click to expand...

you are not opposed to death penalty at all. Your blood pressure began to raise dramatically after the the 4th sentence. You love the DP as much as i do only i dont need all these 400 questions answered that the silver coconut needs (Damn he ask a million questions on every topic just to bait these damn people). You actually want these scumbags burnt to a crisp or popped in the heart. You are quite ready to shoulder a rifle or flip a switch. Congrats to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: caughtlookin
Freddie.B.Cocky said:
I would argue that we are not other countries. Our freedoms, customs, etc were won in a different manner than other countries.

One could and many do argue that our murder rate is so much higher in the USA than other countries because of our individual gun rights. And that may be so, but I got some news for everyone, we aren't giving up the rights to own guns in our country.
Click to expand...
Problem is most of the general public couldn't tell you squat about how we won our independence, nor even know that there were also many who remained loyal to the Crown (especially in SC). Second problem is that we come from a similar background as other European countries and have brought and integrated their traditions into ours, regardless whether that is English, Irish, Italian, German, Scottish, etc.

I also believe that the ease of the availabilty of guns plays a huge role in the crime statistics and also believe as you do in the Second Amendment. I am a gun owner, have a 12-gauge shotgun and several hunting rifles, partly own a hunt club on my grandfather's old farm.
 
I think they need a flirting squad for the prisoners that are behaving themselves. I'll go flirt in the women's prison so they can see what they wish could be theirs when they get out.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: rogue cock
rogue cock said:
MAD, maybe?
Click to expand...
Maybe if you segregated all the lifers no parole together. But if you are going to let them kill each other, why not execute them humanely instead of letting Hannibal Lector cut their face off while alive and eat part of their liver in front of them? There are just some guys who need executing. That said our processes could be made better so that only those caught red handed and who are the worst of the worst get it. Too often the get-a-way driver goes to trial and gets the death penalty while the trigger man has taken a deal and gets life without parole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: caughtlookin and rogue cock
92Pony said:
I don't understand why it's so difficult to execute people. Maybe derailing the topic a bit, but, put the executionee into an air-tight room, for an overnight stay. Leak CO into the room. Person goes to sleep; never wakes up (like so tragically and accidentally happens in the public from time to time).

As far as the original question; Yikes.... Wouldn't want to feel the electrocution, but wouldn't want to feel the bullet either. Tough, tough call...
Click to expand...
Long time ago in a far away place I was shot 3 times. Burns but no real pain. Personally, firing squad for me.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 92Pony
BattleshipTexas said:
Maybe if you segregated all the lifers no parole together. But if you are going to let them kill each other, why not execute them humanely instead of letting Hannibal Lector cut their face off while alive and eat part of their liver in front of them? There are just some guys who need executing. That said our processes could be made better so that only those caught red handed and who are the worst of the worst get it. Too often the get-a-way driver goes to trial and gets the death penalty while the trigger man has taken a deal and gets life without parole.
Click to expand...
It was meant as tongue-in-cheek comment. The problem I have recently had with it is the number that have been overturned and the intransigence of some DA's offices to acknowledge a bad case when presented with evidence of a bad prosecution. Believe one of Texas' Senators got chastised by the USSC for the latter.
 
rogue cock said:
It was meant as tongue-in-cheek comment. The problem I have recently had with it is the number that have been overturned and the intransigence of some DA's offices to acknowledge a bad case when presented with evidence of a bad prosecution. Believe one of Texas' Senators got chastised by the USSC for the latter.
Click to expand...
Yeah the problems are more in carrying it out properly and fairly, rather than concept. That is why it should only be for the most heinous crimes and those where caught redhanded. Not just an eyewitness or the like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: caughtlookin and rogue cock
This is an ages old argument. Give them a choice in the way they want to go out.
Start back in the times of the Neanderthal and work up and about. Put them in the order you want.

Clubbing, strangling, dragging, drowning, smothering, boiling in oil, drawing and quartering, throwing the guilty to the lions, crushing by elephant, keel hauling, thrown from a high place, trampling, back-breaking, guillotine, impalement, disembowelment, flaying, put in a sealed barrel and thrown into the sea, poisoning, crucifixion, stoning, starvation, burning at the stake, buried alive, hanging, firing squad, electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection. Add in the methods of the Dark Ages with all the machinery. But while you wait, you clean up the highways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: caughtlookin
“an eye for an eye” was to keep it equal. Kept the rich and powerful from abusing others. So if a man borrowed your ox and it dies while you had it, he had to replace the ox. Equal. He wouldn’t be allowed to take you daughter or enslave your family or take your land as payment for the ox. All he got was another ox.
 
BigWillieCock said:
You’re correct. Our whole prison system is a mess. And no! I’m not anti death penalty or let them out of the prisons.

Death Penalty-

The majority of death penalty convictions come in two categories. The mentally deranged (serial type criminals) and the truly hardened (career criminals).

The first group, its death penalty or lifetime confinement...they will never be safe on the street again. It’s just an expensive societal cost either way.

The second group is more complicated. If you are born into a violent environment, generally the fear of death is lacking. Whether killed on the streets or by the state, it’s not a deterrent when a persons value system is skewed from day one based in their environment. So for this group, no it’s not a deterrent either.

But not should we sit by and just pay to let them live out their days. The debate hear will continue for a long time to come.

Prison in general-

The system is so corrupted it may not be fixable. We have people in prison for life based on drug laws that have now changed. We have violent criminals in out and in out. We have innocent people in jail which is damn near impossible to overturn their conviction. Then we have the organized criminals who run the prison as much as they ran the streets.

We pay insane amounts of money for a broken system that ultimately benefits almost no one.

District Attorneys should be criminally liable for continuing to fight clearly flawed verdicts. Private prisons need to be abolished. Someone serving a life sentences for non violent three strikes and you’re out laws that are no longer valid need to be released.

As a % we have more of our society in prison than anywhere in the world, yet violent crime as a whole is still extremely high in comparison to the rest of the world.

Im again neither anti death penalty or anti prison. I’m anti a broken system.
Click to expand...
POTD!!
 
The irony is not lost on me that a bunch of people that typically want less government involvement and typically have a strong dislike of big government now want government to take a bigger role in this instance and expect it to be done perfectly.
 
Gamecock122 said:
you are not opposed to death penalty at all. Your blood pressure began to raise dramatically after the the 4th sentence. You love the DP as much as i do only i dont need all these 400 questions answered that the silver coconut needs (Damn he ask a million questions on every topic just to bait these damn people). You actually want these scumbags burnt to a crisp or popped in the heart. You are quite ready to shoulder a rifle or flip a switch. Congrats to you.
Click to expand...
Not under the current system that continually victimizes the victims. To me THAT is cruel and unusual punishment. How would you like to have to relive the most horrific nightmare of your life over and over because of an ineffectual system that prolongs the agony for the grieving, not for years, but for decades? It is ridiculous. If they are not going to speed up the process to a reasonable time frame for victims to obtain closure, they need to abolish it altogether.
 
Gamecockben1979 said:
The irony is not lost on me that a bunch of people that typically want less government involvement and typically have a strong dislike of big government now want government to take a bigger role in this instance and expect it to be done perfectly.
Click to expand...
I hear this often.

Wanting less govt doesnt mean wanting no govt. It has it place, its uses, and at times it's the preferred body to take an action.
 
It’s complicated to bring Europe into this. They don’t officially have the death penalty, but they do have Shariah “no-go” zones, where capital punishment is effectively on the books. This amounts to tacit approval of capital punishment. Who knows if it’s really being administered or not.
 
rogue cock said:
You can't win this argument on a factual/logical basis....the ONLY reason we still have the death penalty is revenge.....an "eye for an eye" belief.
Click to expand...
Yep.

The sad part being, people argue for criminal justice reform until the bad guy is someone they don’t like. Then they want revenge as well.

it’s a terrible system in general.
 
BigWillieCock said:
3,278 people are currently serving time for non violent crimes. At $20,000 per prisoner per year that’s $2 billion to keep them in jail for the next 30 years.

170 people sentenced to death have been exonerated vs 1,533 executions. So 1,533 excited + 2,500 on death row + 170 exonerated. That is unconscionable that 4% of death row inmates since 1973 have been exonerated. We also now know, thanks to DNA, 8 people were executed and later found innocent. Unconscionable!!!

The exact number is constantly changing but here is a great article from 8 years ago, with a very similar number. It was this article that made first me aware of the issue.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...s-prisoners-sentences-life-non-violent-crimes

More than 2,000 people have been realized from prison based on post conviction DNA. I’m not arguing 50% of our prisoners are innocent. I’m arguing that if you are innocent it’s almost impossible to get out. Conservatives estimate 2% of the prison population is wrongly convicted. Liberals like the ACLU estimate 10%.

Let’s take the low number. So roughly 46,000 people are likely innocent. At $20,000 per inmate per year we are paying $920 million per year to incarcerate innocent people on the low end. Not to mention the human toll on them and their families.

The question isn’t how many, one is too many. The question is why is it so hard to overturn?

https://people.howstuffworks.com/innocence-project.htm

I don’t think you can prevent organized crime in our prison system. I’m just making the point if you’re involved in organized crime on the outside, prison time is not a deterrent.
Click to expand...
The only issue I'm emphatic on regarding the death penalty is that there must be absolutely no doubt and 100% impeccable evidence that the accused committed the crime (e.g., a body camera) prior to such a sentence given.

One execution of an innocent is one too many.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freddie.B.Cocky
atl-cock said:
The only issue I'm emphatic on regarding the death penalty is that there must be absolutely no doubt and 100% impeccable evidence that the accused committed the crime (e.g., a body camera) prior to such a sentence given.

One execution of an innocent is one too many.
Click to expand...
That is part 1, but also it should be limited to the most heinous crimes. Serial killers with multiple unrelated murders, terrorists who murder large groups, etc. Not just a robbery gone bad where he panics and shoots or a crime of passion. So it should be: (1) Only the worst of the worst; and (2) only when caught red-handed like you said on film or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atl-cock and rogue cock
rogue cock said:
Isn't heroin supposed to be the best high...at least the first time. If so, I'd take an overdose of that. It'd be cheap because I'm sure they have a ton of it in the evidence locker.
Click to expand...
I've often wondered why it's so difficult to settle on a "non cruel" cocktail to kill someone. We do this to dogs, cats, hell horses on a daily basis. Certainly there is a dosage good enough for a human.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 92Pony
Lurker123 said:
I've often wondered why it's so difficult to settle on a "non cruel" cocktail to kill someone. We do this to dogs, cats, hell horses on a daily basis. Certainly there is a dosage good enough for a human.
Click to expand...
Those lawsuits are just a tactic by those opposed to the death penalty in principle to prevent it. That is what I would do if I represented an anti-death penalty group.
 
rogue cock said:
Hey, put someoe in solitary, put on "Stairway to Heaven" or "Another Brick in the Wall", give them the shot of herion....and nighty, night. Nothing cruel or unusual about it.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing you have never seen a heroin overdose, it’s very cruel. You don’t just die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gamecockben1979

Basketball underrated and why I support expanded football playoff

Replies
16
Views
746
Gamecocks Forum
Gamecockben1979
Gamecockben1979
D

The Ban

Replies
163
Views
3K
Gamecocks Forum
DeeDave
D
L

Gamecocks offer talented '26 WR Donovan Murph of Irmo

Replies
0
Views
178
The Insiders Forum
Lee Wardlaw
L
Alan Cole

Early Football Roster Notes

Replies
3
Views
990
The Insiders Forum
Caleb Alexander
Caleb Alexander
Alan Cole

Men's Basketball Upsets Tennessee: Players React

Replies
1
Views
922
The Insiders Forum
SmokingAndPoking
S
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back