Options

Capital Punishment thread

1568101118

Posts

  • Options
    WalrusWalrus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i think it just comes down to what cost we are willing to pay for retribution.

    punishing criminals is a worthy enough goal for me that if we sometimes sacrifice innocents, it's nevertheless worth it.

    Why is punishing criminals so important and worthy? What difference does it make to you?

    Walrus on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Lets say our judicial system is 99.99 percent effective. So out of every 1000 people we execute we kill one innocent person.

    On the other hand for a sex offense recidivism rate is estimated at 13.4% The average rate for rapists was 18.9% for child molesters it was 12.7 based on numbers i found online.

    That means for every innocent person we kill 134 sexual offenses dont happen, 189 rapes dont happen, and 127 children dont get arrested.

    Personally, thats an acceptable losses scenario to me.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    Descendant XDescendant X Skyrim is my god now. Outpost 31Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Lets say our judicial system is 99.99 percent effective. So out of every 1000 people we execute we kill one innocent person.

    On the other hand for a sex offense recidivism rate is estimated at 13.4% The average rate for rapists was 18.9% for child molesters it was 12.7 based on numbers i found online.

    That means for every innocent person we kill 134 sexual offenses dont happen, 189 rapes dont happen, and 127 children dont get arrested.

    Personally, thats an acceptable losses scenario to me.

    Except the US doesn't have capital punishment for sexual offences.

    Good try though. You almost had a cogent argument there.

    Descendant X on
    Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Lets say our judicial system is 99.99 percent effective. So out of every 1000 people we execute we kill one innocent person.

    On the other hand for a sex offense recidivism rate is estimated at 13.4% The average rate for rapists was 18.9% for child molesters it was 12.7 based on numbers i found online.

    That means for every innocent person we kill 134 sexual offenses dont happen, 189 rapes dont happen, and 127 children dont get arrested.

    Personally, thats an acceptable losses scenario to me.

    Except the US doesn't have capital punishment for sexual offences.

    Good try though. You almost had a cogent argument there.
    And the justice system doesn't believe in acceptable losses.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    chromdom wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    The problem is that absolute knowledge is impossible.

    And the idea of "reasonable doubt", when you really think about it, does leave a margin of error. There have indeed been cases where, things really did look beyond a reasonable doubt to be one way, but that is only due to a coincidence of circumstances, and because fo that an innocent man gets put to death.

    And that is a tragedy. Seriously, if I were involved in any way in a case like that, it would cause me no end of heartbreak, guilt, and remorse. To the point that I would probably require serious psychological counseling or risk becoming suicidally depressed. But I am not willing to disempower our justice system from handing out what I believe to be justice because of the risk that someone could have all the cards fall against them. Not trying to be obstinate here, that's just not a step I'm willing to take.

    You're free to that opinion, of course.

    But are you willing to admit that you are saying it is okay for a couple of innocent people to die, as longas a bunch of bad ones do too?

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    What I'm gleaning from this argument is that the foundation against the death penalty is based largely, but not completely, on the grounds that innocents may be hurt. Not to sound like a smartass, but a logical progression of that argument is that I shouldn't drive my car because I may run over somebody, one shouldn't go to the doctor because the doctor may make a mistake and possibly give a harmful misdaignosis or treatment, teachers should refrain from grading because they may give the wrong marks.

    Which ones of those lead directly to irreversible circumstances?

    The pragmatic problem withthe death penalty (as opposed to my other moralistic issue with it) is that you are inevitably killing innocent men, while claiming you are doing this to protect them, and there is NO WAY of undoing it.



    Beyond that, there is a NECESSITY for transportation and for health care, but where is the NECESSITY for capital punishment?

    Evander on
  • Options
    FellhandFellhand Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    But are you willing to admit that you are saying it is okay for a couple of innocent people to die, as longas a bunch of bad ones do too?

    The good of the many outweighs that of the few or the one?

    Fellhand on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    punishing criminals is a worthy enough goal for me that if we sometimes sacrifice innocents, it's nevertheless worth it.

    You are clearly scum.
    Yeah I hate to say it but this isn't that far removed from the logic process of terrorism really.

    Umm... he's sort of right, there, though I'm guessing I'd quibble with his numbers. But the alternative to the above is "we must never punish anyone for a crime if there's a non-zero chance of punishing an innocent," which is basically the same as "we must never punish anyone for a crime". So unless you're arguing for the abolishment of any sort of justice system, you agree with him to an extent.

    If you swap out "punishing" with "executing", of course, it's a whol 'nother ball of cheese.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    What I'm gleaning from this argument is that the foundation against the death penalty is based largely, but not completely, on the grounds that innocents may be hurt. Not to sound like a smartass, but a logical progression of that argument is that I shouldn't drive my car because I may run over somebody, one shouldn't go to the doctor because the doctor may make a mistake and possibly give a harmful misdaignosis or treatment, teachers should refrain from grading because they may give the wrong marks. Aye, the last one is a bit of a stretch, I know), but you see where I'm going with this. The legal system is an imperfect one created by imperfect beings. It will never be infallible. The point of the death penalty, as I understand it, is that someone is put to death because they themselves took the lives of an innocent person, or mutliple people, thereby willfully forfeiting their own rights and privileges, and their own innocence, due to wanton disregard for the rules of the society they live in. Sounds alright to me, since executing a murderer is not executing an innocent person, and since the number of innocents killed in state-sponsored executions is lower than the number of, say, innocent people killed by drunk drivers, and is shrinking every day thanks to advances in modern forensics. And as my last point in this post, does anyone think that a life sentence is really going to be that torturous to a murderer? If they had a conscience that could be affected by such treatment, they probably wouldn't have killed anyone in the first place.
    Well no, that's not the logical progression. In those instances, someone doing their job might accidentally cause an innocent person to die. If you execute someone who it turns out wasn't guilty, you've purposefully killed a person who was innocent. With the death penalty, you will kill innocent people when the system functions exactly as it is designed to do.

    Just wanted to emphasize the truth of this line.

    It is, of course, all thanks to our little buddy "reasonable doubt". There are cases where, for one reason or another, the evidence really does seem damning, but the truth is something else. Unfortunate circumstances should NOT be the only thing standing between an innocent man and state-sponsored killing.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I don't find the concept of ten murderers/rapists running free from a flimsy justice system comforting at all.

    Life imprisonment is a far cry from running free.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Thanks to modern forensics, innocents are being convicted less and less and innocents already convicted are being released.

    Yeah, um, sorry to burst your bubble, but CSI is a drama, not a documentary.

    Sure, some forensics are being improved, within certain areas, but ever new technique, and every new bit of equipment, isn't immediately available to ever single department anywhere.



    And beyond all this is still the nagging question of "reasonable" doubt.



    Would you be willing to die in support of the death penalty? If not, then why are you any better than the other innocents who WILL (not might) die?

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    What makes you think someone with the mentality of a serial killer is actually going to suffer under their own conscience for life?

    Umm...

    The goal of our legal system isn't to promote the suffering of criminals. It is to seperate criminals from society, and to rehabilitate the ones where it is possible to do so.



    If your argument is that we must allow innocent people to die so that murderers can suffer, honestly, you're sounding more and more like you just MIGHT be wrongfully convincted of murder one day.





    Then again, I'm just biased against people who seem to accept the deaths of others so casually.

    Evander on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Fellhand wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    But are you willing to admit that you are saying it is okay for a couple of innocent people to die, as longas a bunch of bad ones do too?

    The good of the many outweighs that of the few or the one?
    There are still prisons to keep these people in you know. It's not as if the judege is going to say "Well, you're convicted of murdering a dozen hookers but since we can't kill you we're going to drop you off in front of a nunnery."

    And then twenty years down the line if it turns out we were wrong at least something can be done as opposed to nothing.

    Quid on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Maybe we should take the free cable and art supplies from the prisons and give it to the low - income housing projects.

    Or, cut costs in the prison system by eliminating the death penalty, and then free art supplies for everyone!!!

    Evander on
  • Options
    brandotheninjamasterbrandotheninjamaster Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    Fellhand wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    But are you willing to admit that you are saying it is okay for a couple of innocent people to die, as longas a bunch of bad ones do too?

    The good of the many outweighs that of the few or the one?
    There are still prisons to keep these people in you know. It's not as if the judege is going to say "Well, you're convicted of murdering a dozen hookers but since we can't kill you we're going to drop you off in front of a nunnery."

    Not in every state but I know in here Maryland the prison are severely overcrowded, and it takes a serious crime like murder to keep you there. Anything less and your out in a couple months. I don't say this from speculation, I watched in awe as this person I knew repeatedly walked from jail after jail. In case anybody was wondering: He was a repeat drug offender, stole cars, assaulted a police officer, Burglarized homes, Stole my Gameboy SP (bastard!!!), stole about $1500. The longest he was in prison was about 3 months give or take a month.

    I'm not saying it needs to be execution but something needs to be done about the current situation here.

    brandotheninjamaster on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    it wasn't an analogy. it was a direct response to the statement. nice try though.

    Cops are only permitted to use deadly force when they feel that they are under an immediate threat of injury or death. That is a far cry from the death penalty, me bucko.

    Cops who get an itchy trigger-finger and cop a shoot-first, ask questions later mentality are held to task for it, and taken to trial.



    I've never heard of a judge or jury being tried for sentancing an innocent man to death.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    how do we deal with gang leaders with multiple life sentences who are organizing and conducting murders and violent crimes from within prison?

    solitary with ALL contact to other inmates cut off.



    here's the thing, though



    We AREN'T executing these gang leaders right now. they are sitting there in prison, and won't simply be transfered to death row. They would have to have evidence found and new charges brought up against them, and a whole new trial in order for that sort of thing to happen.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    innocents are sacrificed for the greater good all the time.

    would you be willing to be one of those innocents?

    you shouldn't ask of other people anything you are unwilling of yourself

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    five minutes huh? how about five minutes after he's been raped?

    the death sentence usually takes years (sometimes decades) to administer. finding evidence 10 years after imprisonment is what we are talking about.

    please try and be realistic.

    10 years after a conviction you can still give somebody back another 30 years or more of their life.

    Also, that first part is an excellent argument for reducing overcrowding, increasing supervision, and generally upgrading the quality of life in our prisons (so as to prevent rape). Not so much an argument for the death penalty.

    You'll find that most of us that aren't fond of the death penalty also agree that prisoner rape is something we really need to do something about.

    To be fair, we REALLY ought to be opposing the rape penalty too, then.

    I mean, all those judges and juries sentancing people to rape, that's just not cool.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    okay, ive overstated. of course being dead is worse.

    but the point im making is that people dont just get their lives back, even if they are only 30 or 40. they lose loved ones, they lose dignity, they lose respect and jobs and practical ways to make a living.

    being dead is worse. yes. but we take away so much already through any false conviction.

    false convictions in capital cases are only marginally worse than false convictions in other serious felony cases. death is not the only thing we cant take back. the false conviction concept is an argument for reforming our entire judicial system more than it is an argument for banning the death penalty.

    THERE! RIGHT THERE!

    The implication you're connecting things with is that prison is so bad, we might as well kill folks.

    You may be taking the same thought and using it backwards, but it is still THE SAME.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Lets say our judicial system is 99.99 percent effective. So out of every 1000 people we execute we kill one innocent person.

    On the other hand for a sex offense recidivism rate is estimated at 13.4% The average rate for rapists was 18.9% for child molesters it was 12.7 based on numbers i found online.

    That means for every innocent person we kill 134 sexual offenses dont happen, 189 rapes dont happen, and 127 children dont get arrested.

    Personally, thats an acceptable losses scenario to me.

    Ignorign the obvious "those aren't capital offenses" thing. Let me put it to you this way:

    You're okay with killing this faceless "innocent" construct you've built in your mind, but what if that innocent was your friend, your family member, yourself?

    Would you sacrifice your own life for this?

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Fellhand wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    But are you willing to admit that you are saying it is okay for a couple of innocent people to die, as longas a bunch of bad ones do too?

    The good of the many outweighs that of the few or the one?

    Sometimes the good of the one outweighs the good of the many.

    Evander on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    jeeze big e

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    Fellhand wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    But are you willing to admit that you are saying it is okay for a couple of innocent people to die, as longas a bunch of bad ones do too?

    The good of the many outweighs that of the few or the one?
    There are still prisons to keep these people in you know. It's not as if the judege is going to say "Well, you're convicted of murdering a dozen hookers but since we can't kill you we're going to drop you off in front of a nunnery."

    Not in every state but I know in here Maryland the prison are severely overcrowded, and it takes a serious crime like murder to keep you there. Anything less and your out in a couple months. I don't say this from speculation, I watched in awe as this person I knew repeatedly walked from jail after jail. In case anybody was wondering: He was a repeat drug offender, stole cars, assaulted a police officer, Burglarized homes, Stole my Gameboy SP (bastard!!!), stole about $1500. The longest he was in prison was about 3 months give or take a month.

    I'm not saying it needs to be execution but something needs to be done about the current situation here.

    Yeah, but if we want to do something about prison population here in Maryland, what we need to do is work from the bottom up, not the top down.

    It disgusts me sometimes the disparity I see around me. I live in Montgomery county, which is one of the richer counties in the country, I believe, and right next to DC, and to Prince George's county, both of which, while also containing some rather wealthy areas, have their fair share of poverty.

    Take a trip to downtown Baltimore, and tell me that the overcrowding problem BEGINS in the prisons, rather than just ending there.



    Really, it's a whole different discussion.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Servo wrote: »
    jeeze big e

    sorry 'bout that, fish fucker

    you know how I am when I get going.

    Evander on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    punishing criminals is a worthy enough goal for me that if we sometimes sacrifice innocents, it's nevertheless worth it.

    You are clearly scum.

    Also, no-one should be allowed to advocate capital punishment until they've mastered capital letters.

    I chuckled.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i think it just comes down to what cost we are willing to pay for retribution.

    punishing criminals is a worthy enough goal for me that if we sometimes sacrifice innocents, it's nevertheless worth it.

    on the other hand, for example, attempting to secure oil resources through a preemptive war with iraq is not worth the lives of the families and soldiers being sacrificed even now.

    im willing to sacrifice for principles. not so much when it comes to just wanting other people's stuff.

    Hey, wow, another horrible comparison. All of us (Iraq veteran here) volunteered to join the military. I'd agree that the lives lost there aren't worth it, but sacrificing soldiers who've volunteered to put their lives at risk is entirely different than sacrificing the life of some poor innocent fool who found himself on the wrong side of the justice system.

    Good god, you're like the king of fucktarded arguments.

    Which isn't surprising, since all these arguments are basically just rationalizations for your wanting to see bad things happen to bad people. Remember?
    supporting the death penalty has never been about deterrence or incarceration for me. it's about retribution. evil motherfuckers should pay. that's all.

    Yeah. And you're the one talking about keeping emotion out of the argument. Right.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i think it just comes down to what cost we are willing to pay for retribution.

    punishing criminals is a worthy enough goal for me that if we sometimes sacrifice innocents, it's nevertheless worth it.

    on the other hand, for example, attempting to secure oil resources through a preemptive war with iraq is not worth the lives of the families and soldiers being sacrificed even now.

    im willing to sacrifice for principles. not so much when it comes to just wanting other people's stuff.

    What good does retribution do? What use does it have?

    So far as I can tell, the only use it has is to deter future criminals, with the exception of the context of imprisonment or capital punishment, where it's also used to remove convicted criminals from society at large.

    Making "the goal" out to be punishing criminals seems to miss the point. Punishing criminals is a component of something that's much larger. To be willing to sacrifice innocent people for something that's only a component of something that is designed to protect innocent people seems to be rather removed from reason.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    If we killed all life on the planet, there would be no more murder.



    But it's best not to take things that far.

    Evander on
  • Options
    StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Lets say our judicial system is 99.99 percent effective. So out of every 1000 people we execute we kill one innocent person.

    On the other hand for a sex offense recidivism rate is estimated at 13.4% The average rate for rapists was 18.9% for child molesters it was 12.7 based on numbers i found online.

    That means for every innocent person we kill 134 sexual offenses dont happen, 189 rapes dont happen, and 127 children dont get arrested.

    Personally, thats an acceptable losses scenario to me.

    You do realise we could just not let these people out of prison? Our choices aren't kill or let loose on the public - that's a false dilemma.

    Starcross on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Starcross wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Lets say our judicial system is 99.99 percent effective. So out of every 1000 people we execute we kill one innocent person.

    On the other hand for a sex offense recidivism rate is estimated at 13.4% The average rate for rapists was 18.9% for child molesters it was 12.7 based on numbers i found online.

    That means for every innocent person we kill 134 sexual offenses dont happen, 189 rapes dont happen, and 127 children dont get arrested.

    Personally, thats an acceptable losses scenario to me.

    You do realise we could just not let these people out of prison? Our choices aren't kill or let loose on the public - that's a false dilemma.

    not to mention, actually, I just realized that for his numbers to be true, we'd have to be executing EVERY SINGLE sexual offender.



    I mean, talk about draconian.

    Evander on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Starcross wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Lets say our judicial system is 99.99 percent effective. So out of every 1000 people we execute we kill one innocent person.

    On the other hand for a sex offense recidivism rate is estimated at 13.4% The average rate for rapists was 18.9% for child molesters it was 12.7 based on numbers i found online.

    That means for every innocent person we kill 134 sexual offenses dont happen, 189 rapes dont happen, and 127 children dont get arrested.

    Personally, thats an acceptable losses scenario to me.

    You do realise we could just not let these people out of prison? Our choices aren't kill or let loose on the public - that's a false dilemma.

    Yeah, part of the problem with rapists and child molesters and our prison system is that we don't even come close to considering the death penalty for such crimes. We don't even give them double-digit sentences. We (sometimes) let rapists out after like six months...that's a fucking hockey season.

    So personally I'd say longer sentences for actual violent crimes (compared to, say, drug offenses) might be a start before we go ahead and flip the switch. Oh, and if we stop throwing people in the pen for selling a dime bag to their friends, we could alleviate overcrowding as well.

    Also I find it interesting that the guy who said to leave emotions out of it went straight for child molesters.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Starcross wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Lets say our judicial system is 99.99 percent effective. So out of every 1000 people we execute we kill one innocent person.

    On the other hand for a sex offense recidivism rate is estimated at 13.4% The average rate for rapists was 18.9% for child molesters it was 12.7 based on numbers i found online.

    That means for every innocent person we kill 134 sexual offenses dont happen, 189 rapes dont happen, and 127 children dont get arrested.

    Personally, thats an acceptable losses scenario to me.

    You do realise we could just not let these people out of prison? Our choices aren't kill or let loose on the public - that's a false dilemma.

    Yeah, part of the problem with rapists and child molesters and our prison system is that we don't even come close to considering the death penalty for such crimes. We don't even give them double-digit sentences. We (sometimes) let rapists out after like six months...that's a fucking hockey season.

    So personally I'd say longer sentences for actual violent crimes (compared to, say, drug offenses) might be a start before we go ahead and flip the switch. Oh, and if we stop throwing people in the pen for selling a dime bag to their friends, we could alleviate overcrowding as well.

    Also I find it interesting that the guy who said to leave emotions out of it went straight for child molesters.

    When I think of all the problems that legalization of even just marijuanna could aleviate in our country, it really hurts my head.

    And I don't even smoke pot.

    But that's a whole other topic.

    Evander on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I still just like the argument that because an innocent man could go to prison and get raped, we might as well just kill him instead. Instead of addressing prisoner rape as a separate issue. Because that makes sense.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    CoJoeTheLawyerCoJoeTheLawyer Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yeah, part of the problem with rapists and child molesters and our prison system is that we don't even come close to considering the death penalty for such crimes. We don't even give them double-digit sentences. We (sometimes) let rapists out after like six months...that's a fucking hockey season.

    A study made by the U.S. Department of Justice of prison releases in 1992, involving about 80 percent of the prison population, found that the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years. Link right HERE

    I actually agree with you that our prison system isn't designed to deal with inmates who have committed sex crimes, but 5.4 years is one hell of a hockey season.

    CoJoeTheLawyer on

    CoJoe.png
  • Options
    FellhandFellhand Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I actually agree with you that our prison system isn't designed to deal with sex crimes, but 5.4 years is one hell of a hockey season.

    That still seems very short for consciously violating another human being.

    Fellhand on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yeah, part of the problem with rapists and child molesters and our prison system is that we don't even come close to considering the death penalty for such crimes. We don't even give them double-digit sentences. We (sometimes) let rapists out after like six months...that's a fucking hockey season.

    A study made by the U.S. Department of Justice of prison releases in 1992, involving about 80 percent of the prison population, found that the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years. Link right HERE

    I actually agree with you that our prison system isn't designed to deal with sex crimes, but 5.4 years is one hell of a hockey season.

    sometimes isn't always

    sometimes isn't average

    sometimes is sometimes.

    edit: and I'm not sure what your point is. lessened penalties for sex crimes?

    Evander on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yeah, part of the problem with rapists and child molesters and our prison system is that we don't even come close to considering the death penalty for such crimes. We don't even give them double-digit sentences. We (sometimes) let rapists out after like six months...that's a fucking hockey season.

    A study made by the U.S. Department of Justice of prison releases in 1992, involving about 80 percent of the prison population, found that the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years. Link right HERE

    I actually agree with you that our prison system isn't designed to deal with sex crimes, but 5.4 years is one hell of a hockey season.

    sometimes isn't always

    sometimes isn't average

    sometimes is sometimes.

    edit: and I'm not sure what your point is. lessened penalties for sex crimes?

    I think he was just taking issue with my characterization of penalties for sex crimes, which appears to have been a bit off. Maybe I was confusing average time served with average time sentenced. Either way, our average sentence is just barely in the double digits (I actually think it was less a while back, and that might be what I was thinking of). EDIT: Never mind, those were old numbers. I was probably just confusing the two.

    And no, I wasn't claiming that the average time served was only 6 months. But it is far from unheard of for rapists (and other sex offenders) to spend less than 18 months in prison. Especially if you don't count time spent in pre-release.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    CoJoeTheLawyerCoJoeTheLawyer Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yeah, part of the problem with rapists and child molesters and our prison system is that we don't even come close to considering the death penalty for such crimes. We don't even give them double-digit sentences. We (sometimes) let rapists out after like six months...that's a fucking hockey season.

    A study made by the U.S. Department of Justice of prison releases in 1992, involving about 80 percent of the prison population, found that the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years. Link right HERE

    I actually agree with you that our prison system isn't designed to deal with sex crimes, but 5.4 years is one hell of a hockey season.

    sometimes isn't always

    sometimes isn't average

    sometimes is sometimes.

    edit: and I'm not sure what your point is. lessened penalties for sex crimes?

    No, not lessened penalties for sex crimes. I just wanted to point out what the average sentence is for rape, as well as what is actually served. Mcderrmitt was a little off in his estimates. I wish I could find more recent numbers, but the DOJ doesn't update like it should.

    EDIT: Fair enough mcdermott...

    CoJoeTheLawyer on

    CoJoe.png
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yeah, part of the problem with rapists and child molesters and our prison system is that we don't even come close to considering the death penalty for such crimes. We don't even give them double-digit sentences. We (sometimes) let rapists out after like six months...that's a fucking hockey season.

    A study made by the U.S. Department of Justice of prison releases in 1992, involving about 80 percent of the prison population, found that the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years. Link right HERE

    I actually agree with you that our prison system isn't designed to deal with sex crimes, but 5.4 years is one hell of a hockey season.

    sometimes isn't always

    sometimes isn't average

    sometimes is sometimes.

    edit: and I'm not sure what your point is. lessened penalties for sex crimes?

    No, not lessened penalties for sex crimes. I just wanted to point out what the average sentence is for rape, as well as what is actually served. Mcderrmitt was a little off in his estimates. I wish I could find more recent numbers, but the DOJ doesn't update like it should.

    alright, that just all seems pretty far off from the topic of capital punishment

    Evander on
Sign In or Register to comment.