Sandusky jury reaches verdict!

Because I believe that a punishment should be based on the merits of the crime one commits, not due to the irrelevant monetary impact of said punishment.

 

Lifers are often released after finding out that they are actually innocent

 

uhh, you're the one complaining about having to pay for his incarceration. so yes, it is about money. that is the rational basis of your argument.

If you went ahead and said "rapists should be executed", then fine. its not about the money. but you complain about the burden of paying for the justice system you rely on to keep him off the streets.

 

Well, its true...there's all sorts of people in jail right now on the back of one or two persons testimony...people lie, people are wrong

 

Like I said, you should only be executed if you murder someone.

 

Sandusky will be dead soon enough

 

Your philosophy is one of extreme danger to a rational functional society, and is frankly...quite scary. First, people are still entitled to life even though they are in prison due to crimes they have committed (unless they are convicted in a death penalty case). You automatically advocate the killing of those in prison for life without the possibility of parole due to convenience, which is just ridiculous beyond belief. You said it yourself: "If people have deemed that he's such a demonstrated monster that he's unfit to ever again rejoin society, then he shouldn't be allowed to live." So if someone is unfit to join society, then they shouldn't be allowed to live? Well, the mentally and criminally insane are not fit to join society, I guess its time we just wasting them with a firing squad...yeah! better yet, let's get a good ROI and use them as human guinea pigs.

You succeed here in violating basic human rights.

Why am I willing to make society pay? Newsflash: society CHOOSES a system in which those convicted of crimes are sent to prison. Society pays for this and always has. I am not making society do anything.

 

Murderers and rapists violate basic human rights so much so that they are no longer entitled to them.

 

murderers yes, rapists no. the only way to justify the killing of a person as punishment is if they have taken a life. rape is not the taking of a life. sure, it may cause psychological damage, but so can shouting at someone.

 

You probably still won't agree with my opinion, but I just thought I should clarify that for me to think the death penalty would be right for a rapist, they would have to be a child rapist or serial rapist. I fully admit that I may be biased due to someone I'm close to being raped as a child. I would rip their heads off with my bare hands if I could.

 

Most such men you describe had voluntary sex with a 17-year-old 45 times. The girl cries at the trial, saying she loves him, don't convict him, before they put him away for 5-10 years.

Happens all the time.

 

I also think that the death penalty should only be applied in murder cases . . . and that the decision should be left to the jury and not the judge.

I have no problem with life in prison and whatever cost that is to society. The cost suck, but there is a lot of cost involved in the criminal system (everyone is entitled to a public defender for something as minor as drinking in public). Cost should not dictate whether the gov't decides to take someone's life, IMO.

 

As Republicans say, that decision method should be reserved for insurance companies motivated by profit, when we're old and trying to stay alive in a hospital.

 

How much money would we save if drugs were legal like they should be?

 

Lawyers and police make more than the lowly therapy types at the detox. Drug addicts don't take up hospital beds; they die before that. Money would be saved, and freedom would be gained.