It all comes down to money in the end don't it, or rather as the Bible says the love of it.
Money the great Satan that stops otherwise good people from acting in a moraly correct way. Meh! I'd like to see the end of it, but how are we ever to see that I wonder? On May 21, 12:50 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > The cost of prison is about the same as education. I have heard the > figure as $30,000. but maybe it has gone up. > > What about abortion? That saves money. > > What about the final costs of health care for the aged? Should we just > send them a cyanide capsule? > > The history of mankind is violent punctuated with periods of peace/ > altruism. Beyond resources, wealth and power what is the spur? > > On May 19, 11:22 am, "[email protected]" > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yep I think that the cost of appeals is proably what helps whack the > > overall cost up. > > > But you take a strange stance here for a person who has previously > > said that you disagree with the dealth penalty because you can't trust > > the judicial system to get it right. > > > Now you say that the appeals process should be scrapped in certian > > cases, isn't that a little bit contradictory? > > > On May 19, 4:29 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > I notice that the cost of lifetime imprisonment is folded into the cost of > > > the death penalty in cases where it's overturned. I would guess that this > > > probably counts for a large portion of the money attributed to overall > > > cost. > > > > In addition, I don't know how it is in other countries but in the US > > > convicts can stall the death penalty almost indefinitely with appeals. > > > This > > > also adds huge costs. In cases where the evidence is incontrovertible I > > > think the appeals process should be constrained to mitigate costs. > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:08 AM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > This from one source: > > > > >http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-pena... > > > > > And to counteract any bias from this source: > > > > > This from Fox?! > > > > >http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-s... > > > > > Myself I'm not sure, so as I say the jury is still outon this > > > > question as far as I'm concerend. > > > > > On May 19, 2:41 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > I don't know what the current cost is but 10 years ago the cost of > > > > housing > > > > > an inmate was over $50,000 a year. Assuming a 40 year life sentence > > > > > that > > > > > would be over 2 million. I'm pretty sure you can kill someone for > > > > > less. > > > > > Hell, I'd do it for half that... > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:41 AM, [email protected] < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry Chuck totaly missed this one: > > > > > > > I disagree. Killing a killer has value. > > > > > > > It removes a threat from society. > > > > > > It frees up resources needed to protect the society from that > > > > > > killer. > > > > > > It provides a deterrent against other killings. > > > > > > > So does life in prision. > > > > > > The jury is still out on that one as to cost re lifes imprisioment > > > > > > and > > > > > > cost of the dealth penalty. > > > > > > For that single indivdual yes. > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:12 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:23 AM, [email protected] < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Why should we not? > > > > > > > > Why should we not what? > > > > > > > > > Should we instead make our selfs guilty of the same behaviour > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > seems universal reprehensabile? Should we then sink to that > > > > > > > > level > > > > > > > > ourselves? Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. > > > > > > > > My original point was that life is cheap. We don't kill because > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > right > > > > > > > or wrong. We kill for expediency. > > > > > > > > > The point is to maintian that moral superiority. If a man > > > > > > > > steals > > > > from > > > > > > > > me, can I then steal from him? Wouldn't that make me also a > > > > > > > > theif? > > > > > > > > Personally I don't claim any kind of superiority - moral or > > > > otherwise. If > > > > > > > somebody steals from me I'll try to steal back my property and > > > > possibly > > > > > > > anything else that happens to be lying around. I may even give the > > > > guy a > > > > > > > punch in the nose on the way out the door. If you want to call me > > > > > > > a > > > > thief > > > > > > > for it go ahead. > > > > > > > > > revenge killings as we know only lead to further revenge > > > > > > > > killings. > > > > We > > > > > > > > have here in the UK a growing youth gang problem, with kids > > > > > > > > killing > > > > > > > > other kids for slights imagined or otherwise, and then in turn > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > other gang of kids killing members of the ther other gang. Is > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > right, it is the correct behaviour? > > > > > > > > This just leads into the whole argument - is war right or wrong. > > > > > > > Is > > > > it > > > > > > wrong > > > > > > > for a street gang to retaliate when it's territory is breached by > > > > > > > a > > > > rival > > > > > > > gang? If no then why is it right for nations to do the same thing? > > > > > > > > > Killing a killer makes no logical sense. > > > > > > > > I disagree. Killing a killer has value. > > > > > > > > It removes a threat from society. > > > > > > > It frees up resources needed to protect the society from that > > > > > > > killer. > > > > > > > It provides a deterrent against other killings.- Hide quoted text > > > > > > > - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
