Here is a death penalty candidate

They are. There was even a judge caught who was sending youngsters to prison in much greater numbers than usual, and as it turned out, he had a deal with the private prison's owners.

Prison is big business, not because of cheap labor, but what the state pays for a jailed person. Some states with low prisoner numbers actually rent out their free spaces, and let other states send their prisoners to keep them there...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not real business. That's the kind of business that needs a welfare check from the tax payers. They can't operate on the free market, so they are criminally subsidised. When you consider all costs, these prisons you talk about drain the tax payers money. The compensation that guilty parties would pay is soaked up by these parasitic capitalists. Innocent people they send there have diminished lives and contribute far less that someone treated decently in their lifetime. There is a big fallacious theory that niggers make a good economy. There is a 16 Trillion dollar debt was created by parasites and predatory economy theories. That reasoning is flawed an so is that theory you brought that it's big business. It's a bunch of capitalists on welfare that bring down America financially and socially.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We are getting offtopic here, but if you are interested:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-private-prison-business-2012-3

Also, prisons for profits:

http://mediafilter.org/mff/prison.html

California prisons operate at 179% occupancy, just for the record. I think we have plenty spaces we just need better laws.(Like stupid marihuana offenses punished by prison) Oh yes, and more executions, it lowers occupancy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

its insane how many are privately owned and run like corporations

 

The state of California is for some reason addicted to imprisoning people in large numbers and for long periods of time. Look up something called the "Three Strikes Law."

 

There are several versions of this throughout the US. In general, the idea is that if you repeat a crime, the severity of punishment increases, and on third offense it can go as high as life.

What people don't think about is that the 2nd and 3rd offenses might be minor or they or might be by malicious prosecution (say for example someone framing an enemy) or mistake of law or just bad luck with bogus evidence and mistaken witnesses.

There are other variations on this: a person gets 10 years probation, completes 9-1/2, has a few drinks at a party, violates, gets 20 years for the violation, gets out on parole after 10 years, serves 9-1/2 before some other infraction, perhaps even jaywalking, gets parole revoked, and returns to serve out the last 10 years. The relatively minor offense has mushroomed into nearly 40 years of punishment.

Another variation on three-strikes is that a person with a felony gets out of prison, returns to society and sometime later in life commits a misdemeanor. Because of the prior felony, they can be sentenced back to prison. In the case of a vindictive judge or jury, the defendant can be given the maximum punishment. Thus, a misdemeanor can turn into a 10 year prison sentence.

Worst of all, most people who get screwed the worst are poor and illiterate, unable to comprehend the system that swallows them, and are lost to any hope of being heard. They have no chance of launching an appeal. In many cases they accept plea bargains out of fear and then surrender the right of appeal.

The prisons in California couldn't keep up with all the convictions, overflowed in a bad economy, when the Governator had promised to balance the budget, and inmates started dying at an alarming rate from the inhumane conditions, until the federal court stepped in and ordered that they start cutting people loose.

Given the realities of the heavy hand and long arm of the law I think it's out of a bizarre vindictive mindset that anyone would propose tougher punishments in the US. At some point it's just criminal.

 

Now you're coming around. The next fact you need to realize is that there are something like 2 million prison beds in the US. They must be kept full because of the same economic reasons you mentioned before. They need the free labor to keep the prisons running at minimum expense on things like food and medical care. That leaves salaries. You think they want to lay their people off? Hell, no. It's just like any corporation. It takes on a life of its own, self-perpetuates, expands, with budgets, 5-year plans and 10-year plans. You notice how justice has nothing to do with what I'm saying?

When is a person considered dangerous? Because he carried a joint into a child safety zone? Because he punched a hot headed cop? Or maybe he forced his girlfriend into the car and took her home to talk to her. All of these are aggravating circumstances that are used to designate these people as dangerous threats to society.

Another issue is this. Today someone is behind a wall because he is labeled dangerous. But tomorrow is sentence is up, and he's coming out. Do you really believe he changed from dangerous to safe in one stride over that threshold? It's ludicrous. If he's still dangerous he should never get out.

What I'm tying to get you to see is that this is all a matter of perception. The only people we can say are actually dangerous are certain classes of psychotic and psychopathic cases, but these need to be diagnosed.

Suppose you have this warm cuddly pet that your kids are crazy about and they pamper it like a baby. But it goes out a kills another animal in a fit of animal blood lust and doesn't even eat it because it's not even hungry. The pet is not considered dangerous. It may gross the kids out but they'll be back to pampering it in no time as if nothing ever happened.

Now you (or any one else here) tell me what's different about the way we think of human dangerousness. It's a perception, one arising out of primal fear and the world of suspicion that grabs the mind and robs it of logic and temperance.

My point is this: before any convict ever goes behind any wall there should be a diagnosis from a competent authority in psychiatry that the convict is dangerous. Trials should be changed, so that once the defendant is found guilty of a crime with a prison sentence, there should be a second trial in which the defendant may prove he is not dangerous, and, if he wins that trial, he gets probation instead of prison.

I don't know where you get this idea that prisons are not self-supporting. You never heard of prison farms, chain gangs? What do you think they are doing with 2 million slaves to work for them?

Again I say: no one should be put behind any wall without a trial that establishes actual dangerousness, not the mere perception of dangerousness.

 

I can't figure out which side of the issue you are on. You seem to acknowledge that innocent people get convicted, and that people in prison get tortured.

I just can't understand how you can advocate for execution while mentioning the Dalai Lama or the unimportance of life over death.

As I said before, if life is not important, then who cares who gets murdered? Why worry about punishment at all?

 

He's on whichever side he thinks makes for easier trolling at any given moment. Don't go looking for consistency or perspective or serious reasoning in those quarters.

 

The logical one, obviously.

True and true. I don't have a problem with facts.

I think it is you, who didn't exactly get his message. Since he is a Buddhist, he is alright with death itself, it is not the complete end to everything.

When did I say anything about the unimportance of life?

I never said that (quote me), so it is your missunderstanding that causes the confusion.

 

Wrong man was executed in Texas, probe says

 

I don't see your point, but at least he didn't suffer. Did you see my post about 3 people being in prison (not to mention in solitary confinement) for decades, wrongly???

Let me know when we should start closing down the prison system...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The point is that he didn't receive any recompense for the wrong committed against him, because he's already dead.

And if you think that being condemned to die, sitting on death row, and then facing execution is devoid of "suffering," then we have a clear demonstration of why nobody can take your perspective here seriously. If going to prison is held to consist of suffering, then that applies at least as much to the death penalty - are you unaware that a death sentence involves spending quite a lot of time in prison before being executed? It isn't as if they simply take you out behind the courthouse and shoot you right after sentencing. Probably you do a dozen years, or more, in prison before getting executed.

Why don't you conduct a poll to determine what percentage of people would prefer being wrongly executed to being wrongly imprisoned, if you think this is such a salient point.

 

The point is the judicial system makes mistakes. Death is a mistake that cannot be solved.

 

First, you are a bigger idiot then I thought if you thought I didn't get your misguided argument.
Second, a mistaken death doesn't need to be solved, because the client is, well, dead.

Third, for extra fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims

Funniest part is that NONE of the top five most prolific serial killer were executed, by their government I mean. For even more fun, look up what happened to them:

#1: Got only 30 years.
#2: Released in 1998, current whereabouts unknown!!!
#3: Escaped from prison and started killing again. Finally killed in jail, not by government.
#4: Got the maximum of 30 years.
#5: Got life in prison as a deal.

I mean who cares for orphans and other young children as victims??? And as for #5, Mr. Green River, we certainly don't care for prostitutes...

 

Just having fun....

Seriously people, you guys are dumber than a piece of wood. But anyway, if he is dead, he doesn't need anything.

But since it was 20+ years ago, so if we execute only 5 innocents per CENTURY, well, I can live with that. ( I used a faulty statistical argument, but you guys won't notice it anyway)

Not in China, they are fast like hell. But I agree, all death row prisoners should be executed in less than 2 years. The US needs to man up. I think this is the point where I throw in the "justice delayed, justice denied" kind of pointless argument.

It is a salient point and you are using the logical fallacy of "the majority's point of view must be true". Don't do that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

P.S.: Check #6 from my previous post. Most prolific Chinese serial killer, spent only 1 year in death row, the Chinese don't play with shit, they got ride of him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Xinhai

 

I'm starting to think it's impossible to overestimate your stupidity, so discussing this further will be futile.

 

The term is "trolling."

By this principle, then, if I were to shoot you in the head, resulting in your death, we'd have no problems, right? After all, you'd be dead, so what do you care what I did to you? Why should I face any criminal sanctions at all, if the victim is past giving a shit?

Not sure who "we" is, but the USA executes innocents at a much higher rate than 5 per century. Can you live with that?

Again, exactly what is the maximum rate of execution of innocents that would be acceptable to you? One every 20 years?

So you favor practices that are guaranteed to increase the rate of executions of innocent people.

It's a hash of inconsistent nonsense, posted to troll.

When the question is exactly what society perceives to be just, there is nothing fallacious about citing the majority opinion.

Meanwhile, you expect us to base public policy on nothing more than your own, pesonal, unsubstantiated opinion that you'd rather die than go to prison?

So we're to model our penal systems on China's, in pursuit of greater justice and reduced suffering?

Troll.

 

You are pointing links of abject ways of self-sufficiency. I'm not talking about the failing model you are showing. I'm talking about something entirely different.

I'll try to put it as succinctly as possible. Imagine a real city with a 1000 people in it that is self-sufficient. They exist, so we are talking about something completely realistic and practical. They pull their own weight. Now, we just engineer a design which condenses this city's residential, industrial and commercial sectors into the smallest space practical and put a wall around it. Yes, there would be a store with beer, just like our stores. Yes you could buy a bag of weed there too. The design would be almost identical, just condensed. People who are too dangerous or too expensive to live among us, can live there and work. They can be for the most part self-governing, lowering the cost even more. Self-governing would make them more cooperative among each other, knowing it's not us telling them to get up for work. They would be garnished to pay of restitution. When they do their time, they can integrate much easier because they will have the psychological conditioning much like regular society vs. the existing mentality with is a caged animal. They would transition better back into society.

What you have been doing is confusing my model which is non-punishment based and instead rehabilitative based on one this is exploitative and punishment based. My model is based on a real city design, not the failed attempts you link to.

It sound like you just want criminals running free and the other people here just are too retard focused on punishment. I'm the rational one. Let's do it smart.