Would You Support The Death Penalty for White Collar Crimes?

[uscitizen]

You think Madhoff has no victims that would like to flip the switch on him?
Or Enron victims?
Or victims that got their life savings cleaned by con men?

Is it time for the "Running Man" Game show?

 

[FA_Q2]

The death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of crimes and should stay that way. It is a sort of revenge/justice concept and that I have no moral qualms with. The worst should be put to death and the process should be more refined and cheaper. I would prefer that its use expanded but not to the point that it is used on white collar criminals. While some of these crimes are quite bad they do not compare with murder, rape or molestation.

That's a great idea.

People in prison should have to work while in prison to receive anything. If they choose not to work, they will receive basic accomodations, which would include solitary confinement in a 4'x8' cell, 40 oz. water/day, and 3 cups of unflavored oatmeal/day.

If they wish to improve their existance, they can work.

That is a great idea. I have no problem with prisoners used for basic labor. Chain gangs should still be utilized for many of the unskilled labor that is required for building roads and other government projects. The thing that gets me is we have abolished the chain gang and the ability for an inmate to earn their keep and at the same time outsourced criminal labor to corporations where they are able to turn these people into glorified sweatshop workers. Where the former is a good thing and not allowed the latter is abhorrent and common practice.

You might want to check out Unicor, the Federal Prison system provides over 200,000 inmate jobs according to their annual report. The work is optional, and the pay is way less than minimum age. The work is at the option of prisoners, and is considered a privilege. State programs do even more. Visit the Unicor website, link is follows.

www.unicor.gov - UNICOR - Federal Prison Industries

Thanks for the link. I took a precursory look but there needs to be a LOT more digging into this for me. I am strictly against inmates used to make a commercial product. The idea that cheap convicts can be utilized in place of American workers in order to turn a larger profit is amoral at best. Companies do not have ethics and giving them access to cheap labor that can circumvent most labor laws is not what I am looking for in prisoner work. Any prison labor should be run by the state and all proceeds go to that state/county. The idea is the individuals give back something for what they have taken and that the prison itself does not become a drain on resources. Most of that was shot down when many places started privatizing prisons. I am all for the free market but there are SOME things that the government needs to accomplish and detaining our criminals is one such duty. You would not want the courts to be privatized then why the prisons?

 

[FA_Q2]

No.

I don't support the death penalty.

Fine, then you can pay the $20,000 a year it takes to house a prisoner. Simply said, "Put your money where your mouth is."

Statistics in Brief - Inmate Cost Per Day

So you want to kill people to save a few bucks? Then you want to complain about white collar criminals?

Oh and would you be willing to kill a death row inmate yourself? As in flip the switch, or pull the trigger?

Yes, when someone is deemed by the courts through a lawful and just means to be of no more value to society and a threat to others then they should be killed to 'save a few bucks.' People die every day because of a lack of resources (food, clothing, adequate housing and healthcare to name a few) and if that money could be spent in better arias than keeping criminals cages for the rest of their lives then that is what should be done with it.

And yes, if I were in one of those positions I would not have any moral qualms with pulling that lever. I do not feel remorse for those that have committed the heinous acts that get them to the death penalty in the first place. Make no mistake, the death penalty is not used for the common jaywalker, it is reserved for those special criminals that are particularly bad.

 

[Devin]

No I wouldn't.

White collar criminals steal with a briefcase and a pen. They should be locked up for periods of time but the death penalty is extremely harsh, taking of a life. Even if this criminal hurt many people, this type of punishment in my opinion is not condoned.

 

[editec]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

When I'm not in a good mood, I'm all for hanging them.

Of course in the clear light of day, I recant my overreaction.

But prison (real prison) for white collar crimes is certainly fair.

And in those cases where the white collar crimes have such enormous negative outcomes that they rattle the economic foundation of our entire society, they ought to go to prison for life, and all their assets ought to be confiscated, too.

We coddle the elite who get busted, folks.

Milken is a perfect example of that.

 

[Father Time]

You think Madhoff has no victims that would like to flip the switch on him?
Or Enron victims?
Or victims that got their life savings cleaned by con men?

Is it time for the "Running Man" Game show?

That's not what I asked.

Although if you think revenge is a good enough reason to kill someone then there's a lot of murder convictions we need to overturn.

 

[Father Time]

Fine, then you can pay the $20,000 a year it takes to house a prisoner. Simply said, "Put your money where your mouth is."

Statistics in Brief - Inmate Cost Per Day

So you want to kill people to save a few bucks? Then you want to complain about white collar criminals?

Oh and would you be willing to kill a death row inmate yourself? As in flip the switch, or pull the trigger?

Yes, when someone is deemed by the courts through a lawful and just means to be of no more value to society and a threat to others then they should be killed to 'save a few bucks.'

Now would be the perfect spot to copy paste an old rant on death panels. But I'll skip it. If you're going to kill people over money then you a. have a society that is acting hypocritical when it locks up citizens for doing the same. and b. is putting a monetary value on human life.

People die every day because of a lack of resources (food, clothing, adequate housing and healthcare to name a few) and if that money could be spent in better arias than keeping criminals cages for the rest of their lives then that is what should be done with it.

So how much in dollars do you think a life is worth, and no asking a hitman? Just because people die does not make killing people acceptable.

And yes, if I were in one of those positions I would not have any moral qualms with pulling that lever. I do not feel remorse for those that have committed the heinous acts that get them to the death penalty in the first place.

Just making sure you think it's OK to kill someone.

Make no mistake, the death penalty is not used for the common jaywalker, it is reserved for those special criminals that are particularly bad.

And I still say it's wrong to do that.

Although if you want to save money from the prison system I would hope killing the inmates would be towards the bottom of the list instead of the top. You could decriminalize non-violent crimes or at least make their sentencing fines instead of prison.

 

[Father Time]

Killing a white collar criminal isn't necessary, at all.

You want to prevent future crimes keep him locked up and he won't be able to do business with the outside world.

 

[rightwinger]

No

 

[FA_Q2]

So how much in dollars do you think a life is worth, and no asking a hitman? Just because people die does not make killing people acceptable.

In each case it is different. The homeless person that dies for lack of a meal is killed for want of a few bucks. The family man that cannot afford an organ transplant dies for much more. No matter the way you slice it, people die from a lack of funds.

Here is a better illustration for you. If that $20,000 is used for better equipment or more personnel at the local fire dept or PD you may gain several lives in the process. Maybe it is used to build a homeless shelter and that man that would have died for lack of a decent meal is now saved. You may not want to face it but there IS a price on life and that price varies by situation. When we spend in one aria we are cutting in another and it is likely that funds used to keep a triple homicide case or a child molester in prison could be put to far better and help far more people.

No, because people die does not make killing people all right. The justice system is another matter though. There is a difference between me going out and killing versus the courts serving justice.

Just making sure you think it's OK to kill someone.

It is ok for the justice system to determine the death penalty is warranted and carry that sentence out. What are you getting at with this statement.

And I still say it's wrong to do that.

Although if you want to save money from the prison system I would hope killing the inmates would be towards the bottom of the list instead of the top. You could decriminalize non-violent crimes or at least make their sentencing fines instead of prison.

It is toward the bottom and the savings is not the driving force for the death penalty. Justice is. I would agree on the latter parts with you. Our system does not need to be barbaric but a civil justice system can also incorporate a death penalty for the worst of the worst. I would ask why the life of someone that has committed a crime of such magnitude that would warrant the death penalty is worth attempting to save? Do you feel that it is wrong to end the life of someone who kidnaps, rapes and then kills several 10 year old girls? Should a man like that be cared for and we as a people ensure his continued health and well being? I would say no, someone like that is not worth the effort and has lost the privilege of life.

 

[Father Time]

So how much in dollars do you think a life is worth, and no asking a hitman? Just because people die does not make killing people acceptable.

In each case it is different. The homeless person that dies for lack of a meal is killed for want of a few bucks. The family man that cannot afford an organ transplant dies for much more. No matter the way you slice it, people die from a lack of funds.

Here is a better illustration for you. If that $20,000 is used for better equipment or more personnel at the local fire dept or PD you may gain several lives in the process. Maybe it is used to build a homeless shelter and that man that would have died for lack of a decent meal is now saved. You may not want to face it but there IS a price on life and that price varies by situation.

Not the same thing, by a long shot. Take any museum in the world, try to figure out how much it costs to maintain the artifacts and exhibits, to keep them from degrading. Is that how much they're worth? No. So what do you think a life is worth. I mean if you're taking someone's life for stealing a lot of money than presumably you think that's a fair tradeoff so what's the value of a life.

When we spend in one aria we are cutting in another and it is likely that funds used to keep a triple homicide case or a child molester in prison could be put to far better and help far more people.

I highly doubt it will ever come to either kill the prisoner or keeping little Jimmy Hypothetical alive. There's other ways to raise money or cut spending without having to even touch the prison system.

There is a difference between me going out and killing versus the courts serving justice.

I see little moral difference between the justice system killing a murderer and Jack Ruby killing a murderer (I know Oswald never got a trial but IIRC he was convicted posthumously).

It is toward the bottom and the savings is not the driving force for the death penalty. Justice is. I would agree on the latter parts with you. Our system does not need to be barbaric but a civil justice system can also incorporate a death penalty for the worst of the worst. I would ask why the life of someone that has committed a crime of such magnitude that would warrant the death penalty is worth attempting to save?

There's a difference between attempting to save someone's life and deciding not to kill them.

Do you feel that it is wrong to end the life of someone who kidnaps, rapes and then kills several 10 year old girls?

I don't know how we got from white collar crime to this but yeah I do have a problem with executing people, even that.

Should a man like that be cared for and we as a people ensure his continued health and well being?

Well let's see we can
A. Do nothing
B. Imprison them
C. send them to somewhere else (see old Australia)
D. Kill them

Well considering C would just be either burdening someone else with them or leaving them somewhere to die, I'd have to go with B as the lesser of 4 evils. Unless you got a better idea.

I would say no, someone like that is not worth the effort and has lost the privilege of life.

Life isn't a right anymore?

Even if we were to pretend they lost it, we'd still be killing someone without any real need to do so.

 

[RadiomanATL]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

No.

I don't support the death penalty.

Fine, then you can pay the $20,000 a year it takes to house a prisoner. Simply said, "Put your money where your mouth is."

Statistics in Brief - Inmate Cost Per Day

I pay taxes. I do that already.

Moron.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not the same thing, by a long shot. Take any museum in the world, try to figure out how much it costs to maintain the artifacts and exhibits, to keep them from degrading. Is that how much they're worth? No. So what do you think a life is worth. I mean if you're taking someone's life for stealing a lot of money than presumably you think that's a fair tradeoff so what's the value of a life.

I explicitly said that I do not support the death penalty for white collar crimes and have stated that it should only apply for the most heinous crimes and almost all of those involve murder short of child molestation.

I see little moral difference between the justice system killing a murderer and Jack Ruby killing a murderer

Then you may want to take a close look. Is there a moral difference if you lock up your neighbor in your basement (morally wrong) or the state convicts a criminal through due process and then locks them in a prison (morally right). That same concept applies to killing and the death penalty.

Life isn't a right anymore?

Even if we were to pretend they lost it, we'd still be killing someone without any real need to do so.

Sure it is and it is taken away by the state the same way many of your rights can be taken away after committing a crime.

 

[Father Time]

I see little moral difference between the justice system killing a murderer and Jack Ruby killing a murderer

Then you may want to take a close look. Is there a moral difference if you lock up your neighbor in your basement (morally wrong) or the state convicts a criminal through due process and then locks them in a prison (morally right). That same concept applies to killing and the death penalty.

I disagree, you'll get much different treatment in a regular prison than if you're locked up in a neighbor's house. The only real difference between Ruby shooting someone and the state shooting someone is the state gives them a last meal which compared to the execution seems trivial IMO.

 

[Againsheila]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

I don't support the death penalty, mainly due to the fact that it costs us more than life in prison. How about we take every thing they own and divide it up amongst those they cheated? How about we make sure that they keep working and everything they make over poverty level also goes to those they cheated?

 

[FA_Q2]

I see little moral difference between the justice system killing a murderer and Jack Ruby killing a murderer

Then you may want to take a close look. Is there a moral difference if you lock up your neighbor in your basement (morally wrong) or the state convicts a criminal through due process and then locks them in a prison (morally right). That same concept applies to killing and the death penalty.

I disagree, you'll get much different treatment in a regular prison than if you're locked up in a neighbor's house. The only real difference between Ruby shooting someone and the state shooting someone is the state gives them a last meal which compared to the execution seems trivial IMO.

That is ridiculous. the level of treatment matters not and you know that is a erroneous argument. Even if the treatment were identical it would not make it right. You have plenty of good arguments against the death penalty and I can accept that we will not agree on that but this is a ridiculous stance.

 

[FA_Q2]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

I don't support the death penalty, mainly due to the fact that it costs us more than life in prison. How about we take every thing they own and divide it up amongst those they cheated? How about we make sure that they keep working and everything they make over poverty level also goes to those they cheated?

The cost is a problem because of the bull that is allowed. The death penalty should cost far less than it does.

I can definitely agree that all your possessions should be taken though and doled out to the people that you have wronged.

 

[Father Time]

Then you may want to take a close look. Is there a moral difference if you lock up your neighbor in your basement (morally wrong) or the state convicts a criminal through due process and then locks them in a prison (morally right). That same concept applies to killing and the death penalty.

I disagree, you'll get much different treatment in a regular prison than if you're locked up in a neighbor's house. The only real difference between Ruby shooting someone and the state shooting someone is the state gives them a last meal which compared to the execution seems trivial IMO.

That is ridiculous. the level of treatment matters not and you know that is a erroneous argument. Even if the treatment were identical it would not make it right. You have plenty of good arguments against the death penalty and I can accept that we will not agree on that but this is a ridiculous stance.

I don't think that just because the state does it it's ethical, but you're right in that they do have more authority to dole out punishment than a random civilian, so I concede that point.

So as to not end the discussion completely.

How do the motives for the death penalty differ from those of people we convict of murder?
Revenge
Money
We don't accept those as excuses to murder someone so why should we execute over them?

And I should probably mention that I don't think capital punishment is necessary to protect society from criminals.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree, you'll get much different treatment in a regular prison than if you're locked up in a neighbor's house. The only real difference between Ruby shooting someone and the state shooting someone is the state gives them a last meal which compared to the execution seems trivial IMO.

That is ridiculous. the level of treatment matters not and you know that is a erroneous argument. Even if the treatment were identical it would not make it right. You have plenty of good arguments against the death penalty and I can accept that we will not agree on that but this is a ridiculous stance.

I don't think that just because the state does it it's ethical, but you're right in that they do have more authority to dole out punishment than a random civilian, so I concede that point.

Ethical may have been a bad choice of wording. Authority is a good fit. While doing these things without the authority is wrong I can admit that doing them with the authority might not make it moral, just correct.

So as to not end the discussion completely.

How do the motives for the death penalty differ from those of people we convict of murder?
Revenge
Money
We don't accept those as excuses to murder someone so why should we execute over them?

And I should probably mention that I don't think capital punishment is necessary to protect society from criminals.

I do not support the death penalty for revenges sake so let's strike that one off the list. Though closure for the victims is a plus it does not factor in my support. What it comes down to for me is efficiency. Granted, in its current form, the death penalty is far from efficient but I want to see the system fix the problems not get rid of the penalty altogether. Most of those inefficiencies arise out of opposition to the death penalty anyway. The fact is I have a great many things in this life that concern me and absorb my attention/efforts. The lives of those that commit such depravities are not one of those things. I have no qualms with the ending of their existence and no problem when the government does it as long as there is due process and the criminal is given the chance to defend themselves. These people have seen fit to inflict FAR worse on their victims then we give to them. Executions are incredibly careful to be 'humane' in their methods and most of these people went out of their way to torture their victims. It seems to me that the punishment fits the crime.

What it will indefinitely come back to with me is why? Why keep them alive, feed them, house them and otherwise ensure their wellbeing. Good food and medicine is wasted on these individuals that could be better served a thousand other ways not the least of these given to homeless. These criminals do not warrant our time and attention.

This is neither vindictive or emotional but more a matter of complete lack of interest in a monsters well being. I feel that you have lost your humanity when you commit certain terrible atrocities and I have no more concern for these people than I would have for a rat or other vermin [not to sound too harsh ]

And as a side not we DO condone killing for money though I predict you will not agree with the parallel. It is legal in many states to kill an intruder that breaks into your house and is attempting to rob you because it is your right to protest your property. Now that is different than the state as they have the individual subdued (that would make it illegal for you to kill no matter the circumstance) but were just making the connection to money here.

 

[Stainmaster]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

I believe in CORPORACIDE.

Goldman, for example, ought to be put down, its leaders stipped of their wealth and they ought to be put in prison IF, for example, this latest scandal turns out to be true.

If this latest scandal turns out to be true? Intent? Did they intend to defraud? If so fuck 'em.

Well said.