Christ... look, no, don't talk about economics when you don't even begin to understand the concepts you're describing. Taking people that are currently only sucking up resources and then putting them into roles of menial labor and output only increases revenues and boosts the economy. It is not "depriving" anyone of jobs. It means that the nation has more wealth.


You already have to pay for guards and prisons and housing, Dyshade. And I'd love to know how much you make a year and where you got that statistic, Pyrric.


You can not call it vigilante justice if you want. Most people who hear you suggest your going around and shooting people accused of felonies in the head are going to view it differently, but sure, you can call yourself Emperor of Prussia if that's your fancy.

I still don't get why it's so expensive to put someone to death. A quick bullet to the brainpan can't cost more than a few cents.

I fail to see how that's any more painful than volts of electricity going through your body. One of the guards can do it on the clock.

There. Problem solved. Cake?

Do you think we shouldnt have a long appeals process to ensure that the person being put to death is guilty? Those appeals cost money, to take them out of the system is just fucking stupid, like this whole argument.

Do you trust the justice system enough to put your life and the life of everyone else into its hands? Fuck that.

we already do.

I didn't say a word about the appeals process. But the argument was putting a person to death costs more than keeping them alive. Lower the cost of execution is what I said.

its part of the process

Yes but how to distribute the proceeds to the public. Big C baby and these guys areant getting paid and its always dangersous to give more to G.

Maybe we could compete with China again put a new spin on made in the USA.

And if the individuals in the society share like moral principles? you know kind of like things called countries. do you think that the law reflects the moral principles of that societies majority? Would you be willing to bet that a law is put in place as a means to deter individuals whom dont share the same moral principle from partaking in an activity which said society finds morally wrong/offensive? If not my suggestion would be to reread the definition posted.

Yes. Because I am stupid and do not begin to understand the concept of economics. That is why you are right and I am wrong.

It does not increase revenues. It never has. We have people in prisons working right now and have had them working for years an dit still does not mitigate the costs of keeping them in prison. It DOES keep them busy and if you were to argue that if they were too busy working to commit more crimes I might take the point but it does nothing economically for our society to have them work.

A prison guard, at starting wages and at the bottom of the barrel makes 26,000 or so a year. With overtime they might scale upwards too 35,000 or so. In California ALONE there are about 30,000 prison guards and they are still understaffed.

So in California alone they pay out---780Mil a year to the guards alone. And that is only taking into consideration starting wage pay for a beginner guard. Prisoners making license plates and fluffing pillows will in no way mitigate this cost.


Yes. You do already have to pay for them. So take them into consideration because you have too. Anything that you have to pay out fits into the bill my friend.


Wow. When did I suggest that?? Please.... point me to a post where I suggest we should shoot everyone accused of felonies. You are putting words in my mouth

Nope. Societal Laws are built around what is best for society NOT what is morally correct for an individual. We could argue all day and that would remain as fact. In China they think it is best for society if they maim thieves. Hacking a hand off for thieving is morally reprehensable no matter who you are or where you live but for them it seems to be what is best for thier social order.
Morals are individual perceptions that are not well suited for social orginizations akin to nations. Societal, or if you prefer, humanistic laws are what society is based on. Of course democratic environments are more likely to produce laws more in line with your weak individual moral structure only because they are more just laws.

Damnit Dyshade you moron, you dont know anything about money or economics... i mean what experience could YOU possibly have that would make you think you did? huh? I mean jesus... what to you think you are a business person or something?

Well then by that argument its cheaper to just put a bullet in everyone before they even have a trial..... but unfortunately the trial is a PART OF THE PROCESS.

Yes. And the trial should always stand as an expense we can foot. But once found guilty by that same trial we should not have to foot the bill any longer for a convicted murderer. They should have thier sentence carried out no longer than 1 year after being convicted. This would be more than enough time for any new evidence to come into play proving the convicts innocence.

One less convict means 1Mil++ less a year we have to put out.

Which is another argument for getting rid of some of our drug enforcement laws.

Nope. I have no idea how a free market economy works or how to run any sort of business

I could execute 6 convicted murderers with one 9MM bullet VS the 240Mil++ it might cost to house them Once they commit murder they forfiet all human rights. Except for the right to be proven innocent. If they can conclusively prove themselves innocent great. If they cannot they should die.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence


Just a thought.

It might surprise some of you, but I think putting a price tag on life is obscene, and while I have nothing against capital punishment on moral grounds, I'm against it because I don't trust our system to get the right man even 90% of the time.

The main cost is legislation, not a few volts of electricity.



Or we have killed people convicted of murder, at any rate. Is the implication that there is nothing conceivably wrong with killing people here? And this is ignoring that the vast, vast majority of research confirms the idea that there is no deterrence to the death penalty.

Honestly, this is the retarded logic enviromentalists use on gloval warming that conservatives complain about when it doesn't suit their interests. Acting without knowledge is never a good idea.

1 million plus a year? God, you love pulling numbers out of thin air. The cost isn't a fraction of that. But go ahead, cite whatever your data you used to come up with this bullshit tally. Then I'll wait where you explain where the 2.1 trillion dollars a year the prison system is supposedly costing is coming from.

1 year is unrealistic if you understood the legislative process. This is an argument for court reforms, of course, but without that reform you can't achieve this.

Being a bit on-the-nose, aren't you?

So let me see if I understand your logic correctly.

Each inmate costs about 1 million (plus) a year. This 2.1 trillion dollars, which is about equal to the sum federal budet for 2006, is not in any way mitigated or softened by the inmates doing free labor. In other words, the government paying outside contractors to do the exact same word as prisoners, instead of making prisoners do it, ends up costing, somehow, the exact same amount for the government.

I would not want to again accuse you of not understanding economics, as you got so upset at the last time. I would like your explanation for the fiduciary black hole that is responsible for this strange phenomena, however.


Right. Everything has to be taken into account. But a budget is more likely to end in the black if you throw some +'s in with the -'s.


Given that the costs of executing someone are in legislation and not the cost of the electric chair or whatever per se, it is fair to assume that by this you mean we could save money by just shooting people. However, I concede freely that this might just be an example of your not understanding the costs involved.