Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
There's obvious reasons why it would be wrong, by why would it be right?
Let's look at it from a moral and economic view point, shall we?
Economically it's more efficent to have a dead inmate, than an inmate to feed and take care of, right? No, that's wrong. A living inmate works in factories making license plates and other such civil services, so he essentially pays for himself. However, killing an inmate using the lethal injection is quite pricey. You need a doctor, an executioner, and expensive chemicals. So it's our tax dollars get drained, a man gets killed, and all in all our society gets no benefits what so ever, not even more license plates.
Morally, it seems to make sense, in some twisted barbaric manner....right? An eye for an eye, I suppose. Well, I would suppose if this was the 14 century, and the world I lived in was all about honor and justice and there was little regard for the larger scheme of things. But since this is the 21st century, and society has now attempted to unify itself and work for the common good, I simply shake my head and with slight inarticulation mutter "How arachaic." For I know realize that this outlook would get us nowhere. BUT, I have an even better reason for those who curl their upper lip and spit out the word "pansy" or something else that makes their dick feel half an inch bigger. An eye for an eye does seem fair, but ONLY TO THE FAMILIES EFFECTED. If those families are willing to fund the whole process, I entitle them to do so. But it's detracting from our tax dollars, and it's not helping us in anyway. Why shoudl we all have to be imposed upon by a few medieval peoples raging with blood lust and vengance?
Now there's another reason one might give. They might say "Well, it scares off potential criminals." Now I would love someone to explain the logic here, because I certainly don't see it. Criminals plan out a crime so they DON'T GET CAUGHT. They don't consider the death penalty when they're plotting to kill someone. The death penalty has no effect on these people's choices, because they feel that they're going to get away with the crime.
Anyone religious should be against the death penalty. All religions stress the importance of forgivenes and of NOT KILLING. There's no way to justify your views if you're religious and support capital punishment.
I just don't see why anyone would support this. The outlook of "You killed someone I know, now I'm going to kill you, it's only fair" seems so goddamn immature. It sounds like something a little kid would say. Let us overcome this childish instinct to do to the perpetrators what they have done to us. No-they don't deserve life, I'll agree with that, but it does us no good to kill them off. And some of the people that are killed are innocent, more than we'll ever know.
SInce 1973, 107 people that have died from the death penalty have been proven innocent. Countless others have been proven innocent before they're killed.Imagine: You just so happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time(and you're the wrong color of skin) and the authorities need someone to blame. Now you're going to die. But before you do, you'll have to livei n the hell that is prison. If anyone here hasn't read Stupid White Men, at least read the section on the death penalty.
Might I also say, giving an inmate the death penalty is almost rewarding them. If you truly want justice, try having the killer live for decades in an 8x8 cell, working all day in a disgusting license plate factory, and having to be chain raped daily by 300 pound scumdogs who carve into your butt cheek "Tight ass". I would want to die personally.
So let's look over this. The death penalty is more expensive than keeping an inmate alive. The death penalty isn't just, because it gets the inmate out of years and years of torture and torment, OR justice makes no difference we just want to better our world by not doing to tothers what you wish not to be done unto you. THe families effected who want the inmate dead are such a small minority that they shoudl have to pay for the whole process. The death penalty's scare tactic is illogical, and the death penalty goes against all religions. Why the fuck would someone support this?
-------------------- "But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy."
The death penalty was abolished over here in 1965, originally abolition was to be a five year experiment in 1938 . Anyway are prisons really that bad over there? Over here most people I know who have been down, say it wasn't that bad. A roof over your head, hot food and clean clothes sounds better than some peoples lives on the outside..
Quote: and the death penalty goes against all religions.
Sorry, but I love showing the Bible for what it really is
Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.
and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him.
Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Damn, there was a lot of stoning back then, of course capital punishment is justified even God accepts that
As for the economic aspects of putting people to death take a look at these.
1. In New York each death penalty trial costs $1.4 million compared with $602,000 for life imprisonment. The cost of imposing the death penalty in New York State has been estimated to be $3 million for each case (NY Daily News, July, 28, 1998).
2. In Florida the cost of each execution was estimated to be $3.2 million, about 6 times the amount needed to incarcerate a convicted murderer for life. From 1973 to 1988 Florida spent $57 million on the death penalty (Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).
3. In Kentucky the cost of a capital trial varied between $2 and $5 million dollars (Blakley, A.F. 1990. Cost of Killing Criminals. Northern Kentucky Law Review 18, 1: 61-79).
4. The most comprehensive study of the costs of the death penalty found that the state of North Carolina spends $2.16 million more per execution than for a non-capital murder trial resulting in imprisonment for life (Duke University, May 1993; Carter, M. 1995. Cost of the Death Penalty: An Introduction to the Issue. Nebraska Legislature, Legislative Research Division; Cook, P.J. and D.B. Slawson. 1993. Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.).
5. In California the death penalty adds $90 million annually to the costs of the criminal justice system. $78 million of that cost is incurred at the trial level (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).
6. The Judiciary Committee of the Nebraska legislature reported that any savings from executions are outweighed by the legal costs of a death penalty case. The report concluded that death penalty does not serve the best interests of Nebraskans (Nebraska Press & Dakotan, January 27, 1998; Carter, M. 1995. Cost of the Death Penalty: An Introduction to the Issue. Nebraska Legislature, Legislative Research Division.).
7. In Texas the cost of capital punishment is estimated to be $2.3 million per death sentence, three times the cost of imprisoning someone at the highest possible security level, in a single prisoner cell for 40 years (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992; Dieter, R.C. 1994. Future of the Death Penalty in the U.S.: A Texas-Sized Crisis. Death Penalty Information Center. Washington, D.C.).
Draw your own conclusions....
-------------------- The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.
Wow-those were some truly shocking numbers, stonedphucker.
Some prisons truly are that terrible, if not even more terrible here. I saw this play, The Exonerated, about people who were put on death row who were innocent, but then they were proven innocent and taken off anywhere from 6 to 25 years after(It was like 8 separate monologues). When I talked about having "Tight ass" carved into your ass cheek, that was an actual thing that happened to a man. Every single day for years he was ass raped by multiple men, and they would cut him up and carve things into his body. The scar is so deep though, that plastic surgery wouldn't even be able to cover it up, so he forever his to live with the traumas of prison when he didn't deserve to be there in the first place. It disgusts me.
-------------------- "But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy."
Quote: Anyway are prisons really that bad over there? Over here most people I know who have been down, say it wasn't that bad. A roof over your head, hot food and clean clothes sounds better than some peoples lives on the outside..
That's why some homeless people will commit petty crimes in the winter that carry short sentences so they'll get out by summer. However, if I was facing hard time(like a life sentence), I'd think twice before murdering someone.
Anyway, most murders are either crimes of passion which are done in the heat of an argument or are carried out by career criminals who don't expect to get caught. The death penalty doesn't deter either of these things.
As far as punishment goes, I know there are a lot of self-righteous individuals who think that violent criminals are sub-human and deserve only the worst punishment, but I see things a little differently. I think the primary role of a prison should be to keep dangerous people off the streets(the secondary role should be rehabilitation, but I'll get to that some other time). Therefore, I have no problem putting certain murderers away for life(but only the ones who seem likely to kill again, not the "crimes of passion" type of murderers). Oh ya, and they should be kept separate from the non-violent criminals such as thieves.
Also, if you want to keep the murder rate down, legalizing drugs would work wonders by putting dangerous drug-dealers out of business. Come to think of it, legalize all victimless crimes. Have legitimate brothels so you won't have guys murdering hookers in their pick-up trucks. Have Casinos so you won't have the mafia killing people over gambling debts. Also, improve the inner-city public schools so that poor children will have something higher to aspire to than dealing drugs and robbing liquor stores.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
AFOAF- Your statement can be interpreted in two ways.
First, the "disproportionate" number of minorities being executed is not a statement against the death penalty itself, rather the system that leads to the conviction and sentancing. I personally belive that minorities do commit more capital crimes (if you have actual facts/figures that contradict this, I"m always open to changing my position, please post them). If minorities do commit more crimes, then they should recieve the death penalty more than whites (whites are, in fact, a minority. Any racial category compared against the whole appears as a minority, I belive that the word "minority" was created to avoid the un-PC phrase "non-white").
Secondly, if you think that capitol punishment is "disproportionate" to non-Whites, wouldn't that mean that a way to balance that out would be to execute more white criminals? I'd be for that. I think that any person that commits murder without extinuating circumstances should be executed.
Execution serves a number of purposes for society. It guarantees that the criminal will not be, at any date, freed (by a parole board, a Dukakis-esque governor, or escape) to re-offend and kill more innocent people. It also assures that vengance is executed for the crime commited. In a judicial system like ours, the family of a victim doesn't need to worry about going out and lynching the man that murdered their child, because society, as a whole, acts out the vengance on the person. Finally, it (should) serve as a deterrant to commit crimes. If the death sentance was expedited, with 12 year jail terms before execution, and was made a public display, people would have reason to not commit crimes. Since this is not the case currently, people have no strong deterrant against commiting heinous crimes.
The vast majority of statements against the death penalty are either exaggerated, total lies, or are focused on the acutal system of determining guilt or innocence, rather than the actual punishment itself.
For those against the death penalty, let me posit a question.
If a man came into a police station, informed the police that he had murdered over 100 women in the past 20 years, lead them to every body that he had hidden, showed them pictures of him commiting his violent acts, every victim had his DNA in their bodies and under their fingernails (defense posture wounds), would you recommend the death penalty for this criminal? Lets also add to this theoretical incident a psychologists examination that stated that the man was a sociopath (that he did know the difference between right and wrong, he just chose to commit wrong actions), and was extremely likely to reoffend in the future.
Either we execute him, after a fair trial, and assure that he never kills again, or we keep him alive in a prison somewhere. The question that I'd have to ask is, why keep him alive? TO what purpose would that be? Personally, if given the choice, I'd take a quick, painless death over years of incarceration. Which one is more humane?
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Also, the statment that Mister Kite made about "Expensive" chemicals is, at best, subjectively wrong and at worst, a deliberate lie. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm gives us the combination of drugs as
1)Sodium Thiopental (lethal dose - sedates person)
2)Pancuronium Bromide (muscle relaxant-collapses diaphragm and lungs)
3)Potassium Chloride (stops heart beat)
Cost per execution for drugs used : $86.08
This page also shows that the average cost per day per inmate to remain in death row is $61.58.
I realize that something like "costs alot" is quite subjective, perhaps he wasn't aware of these figures, perhaps 90$ to guarantee a person won't kill again is "too much". Either way, thats the rest of the story.
This post was edited to change "Mushroom John" to "Mister Kite", I misread the actual posters nickname, I apologize.
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
What amazes me is that so many conservatives who are so quick to decry acts of "theft" by the state are so supportive of the state's right to commit murder.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
mur?der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m?rdr) n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
ex?e?cute ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-kyt) tr.v. ex?e?cut?ed, ex?e?cut?ing, ex?e?cutes To put to death, especially by carrying out a lawful sentence.
A murder is an "unlawful" killing, an execution is carrying out a "lawful sentance". These are obviously not the same thing, thus, your assertation is incorrect.
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
As it has been noted here before, the Constitution does not provide for taking money from the people. It does provide the condition that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" may be removed "by due process of law". Thus, your life, or your liberty, can be removed from you by the law, if due process is followed. This gives credence to teh death penalty, as well as every sentance from probation, to life in prison.
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Quote: enimatpyrt said: mur?der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m?rdr) n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
ex?e?cute ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-kyt) tr.v. ex?e?cut?ed, ex?e?cut?ing, ex?e?cutes To put to death, especially by carrying out a lawful sentence.
A murder is an "unlawful" killing, an execution is carrying out a "lawful sentance". These are obviously not the same thing, thus, your assertation is incorrect.
Theft noun: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully
It goes both ways. Basically all that means in both scenarios is that the state gets to apply a double-standard to itself.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
Quote: MisterKite said: Economically it's more efficent to have a dead inmate, than an inmate to feed and take care of, right? No, that's wrong. A living inmate works in factories making license plates and other such civil services, so he essentially pays for himself. However, killing an inmate using the lethal injection is quite pricey. You need a doctor, an executioner, and expensive chemicals. So it's our tax dollars get drained, a man gets killed, and all in all our society gets no benefits what so ever, not even more license plates.
Capital criminals aren't allowed to do work functions in most prisons. They are sentance to maximum or super maxiumu security prisons where the inmate:guard ratio is about 1:4 or 1:8. This requires a large number of guards and eliminates the possibility of them "working" to help society. A doctor is a prison staffer anyway (all prisons have doctors), and the executioner is a guard who has volunteered for the job. My post above deals with the expensive chemical argument. License plates, btw, aren't made by any inmates anymore, I don't belive.
Quote:
Morally, it seems to make sense, in some twisted barbaric manner....right? An eye for an eye, I suppose. Well, I would suppose if this was the 14 century, and the world I lived in was all about honor and justice and there was little regard for the larger scheme of things. But since this is the 21st century, and society has now attempted to unify itself and work for the common good, I simply shake my head and with slight inarticulation mutter "How arachaic."
Guaranteeing to the general populace that a horrible criminal will never kill again isn't working for the common good? If a person demonstrates by their behavior that their goal is NOT to work for a common goal, and unity, that they goals are the exact opposite, that is, to seperate, to cause pain, to harm people and their families, then they give up their right to exist in a free society, and thus, society maintains the right to punish them. The COMMON GOOD is the exact right statement there, execution is bad for the murderer, but for the society as a whole, it is beneficial.
Quote:
For I know realize that this outlook would get us nowhere. BUT, I have an even better reason for those who curl their upper lip and spit out the word "pansy" or something else that makes their dick feel half an inch bigger. An eye for an eye does seem fair, but ONLY TO THE FAMILIES EFFECTED. If those families are willing to fund the whole process, I entitle them to do so. But it's detracting from our tax dollars, and it's not helping us in anyway. Why shoudl we all have to be imposed upon by a few medieval peoples raging with blood lust and vengance?
Looking at the methods of execution in use today, you'll see that it is not medieval nor barbaric. Vengance is the job of the criminal justice system. You clearly state "If those families are willing... I entitle them to do so". Would you say that, instead of "expensive doctors, chemicals, and executioners", that upon a death sentance being handed down, the convicted should be released to the family to be executed at their leisure? Maybe if they paid for the rope or the bullet, you'd be happy? Isn't htat what you said, that if the family would absorb the cost, you entitle them to do it? somehow, I bet your opinion will change on this issue now that it has been presented this way.
Also, one of the purposes of local/state taxes is to pay for the criminal justice proceedings. The entire community "willingly" pays for the proceedings to assure their safety. This doesn't really work out that well today, due to the rampant crime, but it is societies responsbility to pay for court costs.
Quote:
Now there's another reason one might give. They might say "Well, it scares off potential criminals." Now I would love someone to explain the logic here, because I certainly don't see it. Criminals plan out a crime so they DON'T GET CAUGHT. They don't consider the death penalty when they're plotting to kill someone. The death penalty has no effect on these people's choices, because they feel that they're going to get away with the crime.
Since you offer no objective proof here, my commentary upon shall be just as subjective, and in the form of a question. DO you think that if executions were made public, that a criminal, just before he murders a victim, could think about the man he saw executed the week before, and decide not to? Using your logic, absolutely no punishment is effective as a deterrant, since it doesn't matter to the criminal WHAT his punihsment will be, since he plans on not getting caught.
Quote:
Anyone religious should be against the death penalty. All religions stress the importance of forgivenes and of NOT KILLING. There's no way to justify your views if you're religious and support capital punishment.
I think that this has been addressed already.
Quote:
I just don't see why anyone would support this. The outlook of "You killed someone I know, now I'm going to kill you, it's only fair" seems so goddamn immature. It sounds like something a little kid would say. Let us overcome this childish instinct to do to the perpetrators what they have done to us. No-they don't deserve life, I'll agree with that, but it does us no good to kill them off. And some of the people that are killed are innocent, more than we'll ever know.
What, pray tell, could we do to a person to guarantee that they'll never kill again? Escapees, parolees, and dukakis-style freedom-eese have repeated their crimes. Not one singular person who was executed has ever re-offended. Not a one. Read my other post as to why society should have the death penalty.
Quote:
SInce 1973, 107 people that have died from the death penalty have been proven innocent. Countless others have been proven innocent before they're killed.Imagine: You just so happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time(and you're the wrong color of skin) and the authorities need someone to blame. Now you're going to die. But before you do, you'll have to livei n the hell that is prison.
Innocent people shouldn't be executed. They shouldn't be jailed either. Should we get rid of jails, since numerous people have been convicted, wrongly, and sent to jails? No. We need to reform our system.
Quote:
If anyone here hasn't read Stupid White Men, at least read the section on the death penalty.
I wouldn't read or believe one word that slobbering, obese liar puts to paper, his web site, or his ignorant, fact-deprived movies. Maybe you shouldn't either?
Quote:
Might I also say, giving an inmate the death penalty is almost rewarding them. If you truly want justice, try having the killer live for decades in an 8x8 cell, working all day in a disgusting license plate factory, and having to be chain raped daily by 300 pound scumdogs who carve into your butt cheek "Tight ass". I would want to die personally.
I see. You claim that prison is "torture" and "inhumane". Quite obviously the Constitution bans this. They should be executed to avoid having to live in an "inhumane" environment. The majority of prisoners need to be rehabilitated, rather than put in inhumane conditions.
Quote:
So let's look over this. The death penalty is more expensive than keeping an inmate alive.
Wrong
Quote:
The death penalty isn't just, because it gets the inmate out of years and years of torture and torment,
Torture and inhumane punishment isn't a viable option. Execute them.
Quote:
OR justice makes no difference we just want to better our world by not doing to tothers what you wish not to be done unto you. THe families effected who want the inmate dead are such a small minority that they shoudl have to pay for the whole process.
So, if families provided the rope, you'd be for the death penalty, correct?
Quote:
The death penalty's scare tactic is illogical, and the death penalty goes against all religions. Why the fuck would someone support this?
Illogical? Hardly.
Against all religions? Hardly.
Read my other post to read why people support it.
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Quote: Thus, your life, or your liberty, can be removed from you by the law, if due process is followed.
What happens when 'due process' results in an un-due verdict and capitol punishment is carried out? More than one innocent man has been wrongly 'executed' by the government of the US. Is that the civilian version of 'collateral damage'?
Sincerely,
A former capitol punishment supporter
-------------------- <~>Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake <~>
Post Extras:
Anonymous
Re: Death Penalty-Did you know such a lack of sense was possible [Re: enimatpyrt] #2093683 - 11/11/03 08:24 PM (9 years, 6 months ago)
the death penalty, if it were proven to be a deterrent to crime, might have a case for it, but the fact is that it is not a deterrent.... nor is it cheaper to give someone a fair capital trial and put them to death than it is to incarcerate them for life.
society gains nothing from the death penalty. its only purpose is as an avenue of vengeance for those victimized by the killer. this is not the way a civilized society behaves. we do not go killing criminals when their threat and cost to society can be just as well, or even better, minimized by locking them up for life.
show me what legitimate purpose the death penalty serves in society. retribution is not a legitimate purpose.
Try telling that to the family of a murder victim.
I see no problem with the death penalty as long as there is DNA evidence combined with the rest.
No DNA, no death penalty. All prisoners on death row who have not already confessed, or have no DNA evidence used against them, should either be granted new trials or have their sentences commuted to life with no parole.
-------------------- “In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients. Thomas Sowell
I agree LDS. The majority of anti-capital punishment claims aren't "death is bad", it's "an innocent man could be executed". That is quite true. But, an innocent man could be sentanced to life in prison, so maybe we should abolish that as well?
If a person is 100% guilty, DNA evidence, or some other concrete evidence (videotape), and the crime is heinous enough, they should be executed.
If every person is aware that the consequenecs of their action could lead to execution, then they are given the choice to persue those actions or not. If they do, they recive execution, but it was with their knowledge that the actions they were commiting could lead to this outcome.
The entire criminal justice system is set up so that society can get "revenge" on a person for the family of the hurt, or the hurt if they are still alive. Retribution isn't a happy, fun-loving, group-hug type of thing, so people don't like it. however, if criminals know that society will "strike back" if they attack 'us', then they won't commit the crimes. The majority of them, at least.
My instance in the above post has yet to be answered. If a man is certaintly guilty, forensic evidence, videotaped the crimes, confession, showed the cops where the bodies were, had murdered numerous people in heinous ways, and their was no possibility that he would ever stop being a threat to anyoen around him, would you support execution in that instance? Can someone please answer this? I feel that I address any points that a perosn brings up in a debate I am partaking and I would really like the same courtesy extended to me. Thanks again.
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Quote: MisterKite said: Wow-those were some truly shocking numbers, stonedphucker.
Some prisons truly are that terrible, if not even more terrible here. I saw this play, The Exonerated, about people who were put on death row who were innocent, but then they were proven innocent and taken off anywhere from 6 to 25 years after(It was like 8 separate monologues). When I talked about having "Tight ass" carved into your ass cheek, that was an actual thing that happened to a man. Every single day for years he was ass raped by multiple men, and they would cut him up and carve things into his body. The scar is so deep though, that plastic surgery wouldn't even be able to cover it up, so he forever his to live with the traumas of prison when he didn't deserve to be there in the first place. It disgusts me.
This sounds quite hokey. Plastic surgery can fix almost anything. Also, as I've poined out before, keeping a person in an environment such as that is cruel and inhumane, and thus, illegal.
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Post Extras:
Anonymous
Re: Death Penalty-Did you know such a lack of sense was possible [Re: enimatpyrt] #2093786 - 11/11/03 08:56 PM (9 years, 6 months ago)
The majority of anti-capital punishment claims aren't "death is bad", it's "an innocent man could be executed". That is quite true. But, an innocent man could be sentanced to life in prison, so maybe we should abolish that as well?
that's not what my claim is. i don't think it's right to execute someone, even if their guilt is a 100% certainty.
If a person is 100% guilty, DNA evidence, or some other concrete evidence (videotape), and the crime is heinous enough, they should be executed.
why?
If every person is aware that the consequenecs of their action could lead to execution, then they are given the choice to persue those actions or not.
they already do have that choice, and no study has ever shown that the death penalty affects their decision.
The entire criminal justice system is set up so that society can get "revenge" on a person for the family of the hurt, or the hurt if they are still alive.
no it is not. it is set up to reduce the threat to society posed by criminals and to provide restitution, not retribution, for victims.
however, if criminals know that society will "strike back" if they attack 'us', then they won't commit the crimes. The majority of them, at least.
show me some proof that the real deterrent affect of the possibility of death penalty exceeds that of the possibilty of life without parole.
My instance in the above post has yet to be answered. If a man is certaintly guilty, forensic evidence, videotaped the crimes, confession, showed the cops where the bodies were, had murdered numerous people in heinous ways, and their was no possibility that he would ever stop being a threat to anyoen around him, would you support execution in that instance?
how can a man in shackles and bars be a theat to those around him?
the only time i would support a death sentence would be for high-profile killers who would present a risk to keep alive and incarcerated. high-level gang or terrorist leaders, for instance... keeping them alive and incarcerated would create the possibility that their comrades on the outside might take hostages or something and demand their release... if that were a possibility, i could see some justification for executing them... as long as their crimes were bad enough of course.
but for just some random killer... no, there is no good acheived by execution.
Preface: It's hard to reply to this when you use boldface instead of quote, if this comes out a bit odd-looking, it's because I'm trying to make it somewhat logical, and could possibly fail
I said: If every person is aware that the consequenecs of their action could lead to execution, then they are given the choice to persue those actions or not.
Mush said: they already do have that choice, and no study has ever shown that the death penalty affects their decision.
My reply: Well, that isn't proving the point. To prove that it's efficnency, you'd have to poll the people who WERE stopped as well, which is near impossible to do. I'd also like to see that study, or the one that showed the opposite.
I said: The entire criminal justice system is set up so that society can get "revenge" on a person for the family of the hurt, or the hurt if they are still alive.
You replied: no it is not. it is set up to reduce the threat to society posed by criminals and to provide restitution, not retribution, for victims.
Sorry, it's not. The criminal justice system takes on the role of retribution from the family of the victim, or the victim themselves. This way, you don't have families out killing for revenge. They feel that the CJS has properly done the task of revenge. This isn't true in every case, nor for every crime. However, for murder, it is.
I said: however, if criminals know that society will "strike back" if they attack 'us', then they won't commit the crimes. The majority of them, at least.
You replied: show me some proof that the real deterrent affect of the possibility of death penalty exceeds that of the possibilty of life without parole.
My reply; It's just as impossible for either of us to prove it. I could state that back in the early days of America, their were less murders per capita and people wh odid murder were hung in the town square for all to see. This has so many variables in it, it doesn't "prove" anything. We'll have to agree that this isn't something that can be objectively proven. Arab nations, with their punishment for theft being the dismemberment of the thief, have MUCH less theft than we do, tho.
I said: My instance in the above post has yet to be answered. If a man is certaintly guilty, forensic evidence, videotaped the crimes, confession, showed the cops where the bodies were, had murdered numerous people in heinous ways, and their was no possibility that he would ever stop being a threat to anyoen around him, would you support execution in that instance?
you replied: how can a man in shackles and bars be a theat to those around him?
The man could escape, he could be paroled, or he could be released by a politican such as Dukakis. How many of Dukakii's released prisoners commited more violent offenses? How many dead people did?
You said :the only time i would support a death sentence would be for high-profile killers who would present a risk to keep alive and incarcerated. high-level gang or terrorist leaders, for instance... keeping them alive and incarcerated would create the possibility that their comrades on the outside might take hostages or something and demand their release... if that were a possibility, i could see some justification for executing them... as long as their crimes were bad enough of course. but for just some random killer... no, there is no good acheived by execution.
Murder is murder. If a man kills 15 children, he deserves the worst punishment we can think of, and do while still being in accordance with the ban on "cruel and inhumane" punishments. Thus, lethal injection.
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Quote: And you accuse of us liberals of thinking with our hearts instead of our heads
Nope. It's just an acceptence of human nature. Most people IMO, desire revenge when wronged.
-------------------- “In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients. Thomas Sowell
Addendum- Do you think that a man who is in shackles and behind bars is more or less likely to escape and kill than man who was executed, examined, and buried? In NC or Virginia, I forget where, a number of men on death row actually managed to escape from prison. Fortunatly they didn't kill anyone, but do you want that risk to be present?
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Quote: And you accuse of us liberals of thinking with our hearts instead of our heads
Nope. It's just an acceptence of human nature. Most people IMO, desire revenge when wronged.
Most people desire to be rich, too. That doesn't mean they're automatically entitled to a million dollars. Many families would desire to see that person tortured as well, but that doesn't mean we should allow cruel and unusual punishment in this country.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
I didn't say anyone was automatically entitled to anything. It was merely an observation.
Tell you what..... tomorrow kick a dozen people in the shin, let us know how many kick you back. Purely in the interest of science of course.
-------------------- “In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients. Thomas Sowell
The results of that experiment would be irrelevant. Of course most would kick me back, but that doesn't make it right. The proper course of action would be to restrain me from kicking anyone else.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
Post Extras:
Anonymous
Re: Death Penalty-Did you know such a lack of sense was possible [Re: enimatpyrt] #2093951 - 11/11/03 09:39 PM (9 years, 6 months ago)
Well, that isn't proving the point. To prove that it's efficnency, you'd have to poll the people who WERE stopped as well, which is near impossible to do. I'd also like to see that study, or the one that showed the opposite.
sorry, but until a study can show conclusively (and to date none have) that the death penalty is an effective crime deterrent, it is flawed argumentation to use the deterrence argument.
Sorry, it's not. The criminal justice system takes on the role of retribution from the family of the victim, or the victim themselves. This way, you don't have families out killing for revenge. They feel that the CJS has properly done the task of revenge. This isn't true in every case, nor for every crime. However, for murder, it is.
no it is not. simple revenge is not an ethical use of force. the purpose of the justice system is to limit the risk criminals pose to society and to possibly provide for restitution for victims. the difference between this and revenge is that in the case of revenge, there is nothing gained by anyone. there is no rational reason for it, and it is not an ethical use of force. if punishment and revenge were the purposes of the system, then there would be an argument for such practices as beating and mutilating convicts... all in the course of lawfully prescribed revenge of course...no, these practices do no good for anyone but are only for punishment and revenge.
The man could escape, he could be paroled, or he could be released by a politican such as Dukakis. How many of Dukakii's released prisoners commited more violent offenses? How many dead people did?
my argument is life in prison. stick to refuting that lest you wind up burning down a straw man.
you've got a point with escapes. the technology exists however to build prisons which are virtually inescapable. there is a very, very slight risk... and this risk is the only valid point for you to be arguing behind.
Murder is murder. If a man kills 15 children, he deserves the worst punishment we can think of
again... this isn't about what someone "deserves"... the only people who "deserve" something are the loved ones of the people killed, and killing the said killer gives them nothing besides revenge.
your argument mostly revolves around the idea of revenge...
either show me how revenge is an ethically acceptable use of force or show me how putting people to death decreases the risk and cost of violent killers to society.
Sorry. If someone kicked you hard enough you'd soon learn not to kick and perhaps some who watched would realize there's a price to pay for ones actions.
-------------------- “In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients. Thomas Sowell
Yeah there is. It is immoral not to retaliate against those who initiate force.
the death penalty, if it were proven to be a deterrent to crime, might have a case for it, but the fact is that it is not a deterrent....
Incorrect. The death penalty is a deterrent. We just have no way of knowing how much of a deterrent it is, since we have no way of knowing how many murders were aborted when the would-be murderer thinks about the possible consequences. It's not as if they file a police report each time...
Frustrated husband at front desk of cop shop -- "Yeah, officer, I was going to kill my wife the other night. But then I figured I might end up being executed, so I changed my mind. Just thought I should let you know."
Desk sergeant -- "Uh huh." *makes checkmark in ledger* "Next!"
If you think the death penalty is not a deterrent, ask yourself if the distribution of murders committed by day of the week would change if the law were altered so that murders committed on a Sunday, Tuesday, and Friday were punishable by death and those committed on the other days of the week were punishable by life imprisonment.
Quote: mushmaster said: that's not what my claim is. i don't think it's right to execute someone, even if their guilt is a 100% certainty.
the only time i would support a death sentence would be for high-profile killers who would present a risk to keep alive and incarcerated. high-level gang or terrorist leaders, for instance... keeping them alive and incarcerated would create the possibility that their comrades on the outside might take hostages or something and demand their release... if that were a possibility, i could see some justification for executing them... as long as their crimes were bad enough of course.
Statements that vastly contradict themselves make it quite hard to discuss a final conclusive point with anyone. Which one is it?
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Yeah there is. It is immoral not to retaliate against those who initiate force.
Please do explain. I'm interested in hearing how retaliation(rather than defense) is an acceptable use of force.
Quote: the death penalty, if it were proven to be a deterrent to crime, might have a case for it, but the fact is that it is not a deterrent....
Incorrect. The death penalty is a deterrent. We just have no way of knowing how much of a deterrent it is, since we have no way of knowing how many murders were aborted when the would-be murderer thinks about the possible consequences. It's not as if they file a police report each time...
I think the question here is: Is it any more effective as a deterrent than life without parole? And if so, it it enough of a deterrent to justify such a barbaric practice?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
Execution is not barbaric. Execution GUARANTEES that the person who was a menace to society, will not re-offend. we have no idea of knowing how many people either sentance has deterred from commiting a specific crime, but we can be totally sure that a person who is executed will not kill again. Totally 100% sure.
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Quote: Execution GUARANTEES that the person who was a menace to society, will not re-offend.
First of all, this does not make it any less barbaric. Also, barring the possibility of jailbreak, which rarely happens, the same could be said of life without parole.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
Post Extras:
Anonymous
Re: Death Penalty-Did you know such a lack of sense was poss [Re: Phred] #2094124 - 11/11/03 10:25 PM (9 years, 6 months ago)
what i'm arguing here is that revenge and retribution are not justifiable uses of force.
minimizing threat of escapes and the threat of further crimes commited while in prison, and also making use of the possible deterrent value of the death penalty, are all possible arguing points in favor of it. revenge for the sake of revenge is not.
Quote: Baby_Hitler said: We just need to make it so that if a person who is executed is found to be guilty, then they judge and jury of the case have to be executed.
Wouldn't that be fair?
I'm guessing you meant "innocent".
-------------------- “In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients. Thomas Sowell
Quote: Execution GUARANTEES that the person who was a menace to society, will not re-offend.
First of all, this does not make it any less barbaric. Also, barring the possibility of jailbreak, which rarely happens, the same could be said of life without parole.
No offense friend, but I said "guaranteed". "rarely happens" and "guaranteed" are far removed. I don't think that it is barbaric, far from it. A last meal is given, the convict is given a chance to say their last words, to have religious mentorship at the time, and to have a painless (usually) execution. How many of their victims were granted such amenities?
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
I also don't think that the "revenge" is a negative aspect of the death penalty. The family of the victim(s) know that the man that hurt them went through the terrifying ordeal of facing his death, albeit a painless one. Society has punished someone who's crimes are so horrible that our laws prevent us from giving them a suiting punishment. These people that commit these crimes deserve the harshest punishment we can think of. The only reason, and I say this partly in jest here, that I could be against the death penalty is if they made a special jail for all convicted murderers, dropped food in from above, never had to have one person come into actual physical contact with these people. They would recieve no medical aide, no assistance in any manner. Then they could just tear each other apart.
This, however, would be quite unConstitutional.
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Quote: Execution GUARANTEES that the person who was a menace to society, will not re-offend.
First of all, this does not make it any less barbaric. Also, barring the possibility of jailbreak, which rarely happens, the same could be said of life without parole.
No offense friend, but I said "guaranteed". "rarely happens" and "guaranteed" are far removed.
True, but when you think about it, the likelihood of a prisoner escaping from prison and then killing again is less likely than that of an innocent man being executed, so you end up with less loss of innocent life if you abolish the death penalty.
Quote: I don't think that it is barbaric, far from it. A last meal is given, the convict is given a chance to say their last words, to have religious mentorship at the time, and to have a painless (usually) execution. How many of their victims were granted such amenities?
It is still government-sanctioned killing, and it is barbaric for a so-called "civilized" society to sink to such a level.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
What pisses me off most about this post is the narrow-mindedness of both sideds of the argument.
Everyone has been arguing the whole death vs. life for murders, as if that is the only solution, because that is what we have been taught all our lives is the solution to the problem.
First of all, I think the best argument the Supreme Court could ever argue is the question, "Does the US government have the right to take the lives of it's citizens?" Everyone would jump to the conclusion yes because what the hell are you thinking, they already have. But what people don't realize is that if the government has this power, then what is to stop them from killing old people, fetuses, or criminals, or how about the average joe, just because the government deems that it has the right to do so?
You may say, well, it depends on the situation, and that isn't relevant, but deep at the heart of the issue it is. Also, as far as the death penalty goes, why does it only apply to an individual regular citizen? Why does Joe have to go to prison for life or die for killing one person, when corporations that make decisions that kill hundreds of people only have to pay a fine, and why is the fine usually less or nonexistant if it happens to a poor 3rd world country person? Wouldn't things change quick in America if the whole company board is charged with murdered and hung?
How about our president? He sends off hundreds of thousands of soldiers to kill thousands of people. Shouldn't he be given the same treatment he has dealt out? You may argue that it was a "just cause" and like it or not war is considered the only time for justifiable murder in all countries, but I thought murder was only justified in "defense"?
Finally, what about the whole, you killed, so your life is over, and even if you do live your going to suffer for the rest of your life. This makes no sense. There are murders living amoung you now, as only 60% of murders ever result in an arrest. They may never kill again, and may be your best friend, teacher, employee, but everyone seems to be so eager to severely punish.
Prison does not rehabilitate people at all in America, don't delude yourself. Prison's only goal is to put people on layaway, and even after they supposedly pay their debt to society, they are forever stigmatized by it when applying for a job. No one has any faith in people anymore, I know that it seems idealistic, but America definiteally lacks compassion, and would rather just ruin people's lives than try to rehabilitate them. It's a totally vicious cycle, and it doesn't suprise me that even our so called "rehabilitated" inmates find themselves in jail again. I know that many people argue that all prisoners are lazy, don't want to help themselves, and for those cases, fine let them stay in prison. I don't know what the solution is, but people usually don't kill people for no reason, unless they're psychos.
It seems the only way to become a good member of society again is to become a Jesus worshipper and to praise how his love got you through prison and he conveniently forgave you of all your sins. Actually, I don't even want to start this argument, as it already has been done to death.
Well, I know it's kind of rambling but those are a few points to get off my chest. I know I'm going to be branded a peace loving idealistic out of touch with reality hippy pussy, but hey some of the things I said are true, I like others don't know how to make an idealistic utopia and make these things work in real life, but if people would stop looking at issues the same old way, maybe more discussion would come of the issues and we could reach a clear concensus or an effective alternative.
I think I'm going to start my own religion, I think I'll call it Miloism. I'll start working on my teachings now, and maybe I'll post them later to attract converts.
Thats subjective, we really can't boil every argument down to subjective opinion. Or, if we can, we have to realie that it is an issue that needs to be voted upon. If it's subjective (such as a presidency / political position), then the majority is right. you can subjectivly think that the majority is wrong, but thats just your owb subjective opinion.
do I win the award for using the word "subjective" the most in any post?
Also, no innocent person would be sentanced to death. Not only are juries required to convict a person, they'd be required to look at all o the evidence and assert that it is "clearly guilty". DNA evidence, etc. I'd be all for legislation that requires another "level" of guilt for the death penalty to be assessed. Their would be certain key elements of assessing absolute guilt, or the sort of guilt that assures that teh death penalty can be given, OR the subjective opinion of the jury on the horrific nature of the crimes. If a criminal was seen by15 people, DNA mixed, videotape, confession, lead prosecutors to the bodies that were buried uner the floorboards in his basement, that would be enough to assure ourselves of his guilt. Thus, he would be executed.
Edit: Your assumption about the nmber of innocent men executed and the number of escapees is wrong on two counts. First you can't tell how many TOTAL executed people have been innocent, versus how many would have escaped. And if an escapee kills 50 people, then thats more than a 1:1 ratio.
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Quote: Also, no innocent person would be sentanced to death. Not only are juries required to convict a person, they'd be required to look at all o the evidence and assert that it is "clearly guilty". DNA evidence, etc. I'd be all for legislation that requires another "level" of guilt for the death penalty to be assessed. Their would be certain key elements of assessing absolute guilt, or the sort of guilt that assures that teh death penalty can be given, OR the subjective opinion of the jury on the horrific nature of the crimes. If a criminal was seen by15 people, DNA mixed, videotape, confession, lead prosecutors to the bodies that were buried uner the floorboards in his basement, that would be enough to assure ourselves of his guilt. Thus, he would be executed.
You're talking in terms of the hypothetical but the death penalty is a reality, and in this reality, innocent people ARE executed. This is an undisputed fact.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
You may say, well, it depends on the situation, and that isn't relevant, but deep at the heart of the issue it is.
Of course it depends on the situation. The situations under which a person may be executed are very narrowly limited and well-defined. The number of these situations has not increased over time -- in fact the reverse is true.
Why does Joe have to go to prison for life or die for killing one person, when corporations that make decisions that kill hundreds of people only have to pay a fine...
And an example of such decisions would be....?
How about our president? He sends off hundreds of thousands of soldiers to kill thousands of people. Shouldn't he be given the same treatment he has dealt out?
He has the constitutional power to send them. Note that he had the backing of Congress.
Prison's only goal is to put people on layaway, and even after they supposedly pay their debt to society, they are forever stigmatized by it when applying for a job.
Quote: biglo said: Everyone has been arguing the whole death vs. life for murders, as if that is the only solution, because that is what we have been taught all our lives is the solution to the problem.
I think that the best course of action here is much like it is for abortion. We should curtail the behavior and the acceptance of the behavior that leads to the outcome. A person that commits an especially heinous crime should be removed from society permanently. Hard to do without killing or isolating (jailing) them. Lets see if you mention any other possible solutions.
Quote:
First of all, I think the best argument the Supreme Court could ever argue is the question, "Does the US government have the right to take the lives of it's citizens?" Everyone would jump to the conclusion yes because what the hell are you thinking, they already have. But what people don't realize is that if the government has this power, then what is to stop them from killing old people, fetuses, or criminals, or how about the average joe, just because the government deems that it has the right to do so?
Well, the armed citizenry, mainly. This possibility is so far-reached that it's hard to bring up a logical answer for it. If the state did start executing people en masse, they'd be overthrown. I can't think of any mroe answers that might be realistic. Checks and balancs. Guilty people get executed.
Quote:
You may say, well, it depends on the situation, and that isn't relevant, but deep at the heart of the issue it is.
I see.
Quote:
Also, as far as the death penalty goes, why does it only apply to an individual regular citizen? Why does Joe have to go to prison for life or die for killing one person, when corporations that make decisions that kill hundreds of people only have to pay a fine, and why is the fine usually less or nonexistant if it happens to a poor 3rd world country person? Wouldn't things change quick in America if the whole company board is charged with murdered and hung?
If a company did actions that intentionally lead to deaths of people, with malice aforethought, not every single member of that company could be complicit in the actions. If one member of a company had been using company employees to murder people, they should all ( that were involved) face the death penalty
Quote:
How about our president? He sends off hundreds of thousands of soldiers to kill thousands of people. Shouldn't he be given the same treatment he has dealt out? You may argue that it was a "just cause" and like it or not war is considered the only time for justifiable murder in all countries, but I thought murder was only justified in "defense"?
Do you see a difference in a President sending men off to war who volunteered to join a force that was controlled by him, and acknowledged, voluntarily, that it was their duty, and a man breaking into womens houses and strangling them? Killing people in a war just isn't considered murder,unless it is done intentionally. Sloabdon Milosevich intentionally harmed innocents, allegedly, in his war, and he was tried for it. How many Nazis were hung at Nuremburg? A president is given the legal power to send forces into a nation to war for (x) days (I think it's 60), without Congressional approval. The obvious difference is that the soldiers volunteer to be in the service, at least for now.
Quote:
Finally, what about the whole, you killed, so your life is over, and even if you do live your going to suffer for the rest of your life. This makes no sense. There are murders living amoung you now, as only 60% of murders ever result in an arrest. They may never kill again, and may be your best friend, teacher, employee, but everyone seems to be so eager to severely punish.
Are you possibly suggesting that these people go unpunished? Their are murderERs among you now that are killing over and over again. Maybe your neighbor Mr. Hes Such A Nice Guy, is chopping bodies up in his basement. This paragraph is entirely devoid of intellectual merit. They may never kill again, but if their "one time" was your relative or friend, you might think differently about just allowing them to walk around free.
Quote:
Prison does not rehabilitate people at all in America, don't delude yourself. Prison's only goal is to put people on layaway, and even after they supposedly pay their debt to society, they are forever stigmatized by it when applying for a job.
I think that prisons should be geared toward rehabilitaion for people who commit non-violent crimes, punishment mixed with rehabilitation for those that have commited somewhat violent crimes (armed robbery, with no injuries or fatalities, for example), and just punishment and seclusion for those that have injured others.
Quote:
No one has any faith in people anymore, I know that it seems idealistic, but America definiteally lacks compassion, and would rather just ruin people's lives than try to rehabilitate them. It's a totally vicious cycle, and it doesn't suprise me that even our so called "rehabilitated" inmates find themselves in jail again. I know that many people argue that all prisoners are lazy, don't want to help themselves, and for those cases, fine let them stay in prison. I don't know what the solution is, but people usually don't kill people for no reason, unless they're psychos.
Since you don't form one idea with the opening sentanec of a paragraph, then expunge upon it through the remainder of the sentances there in, it's hard to really reply to them. Psychos kill people for a reason, because they are crazy. The fact that they kill for a "Reason' doesn't make it any less heinous. Lets say my reason is that I want to make a suit of human skin out of women, well great, I've got a reason, so now I shouldn't be pnished? Thats BS.
Quote:
It seems the only way to become a good member of society again is to become a Jesus worshipper and to praise how his love got you through prison and he conveniently forgave you of all your sins. Actually, I don't even want to start this argument, as it already has been done to death.
I don't belive in God, but if people in prison do find a way to better their lives via "god", good for them. God doesn't hjust do that for prisoners, he does it for everyone. Believing that you are forgiven can easily lead to starting anew. How has this argument, and what argument do you even mean, been done to death?
Quote:
Well, I know it's kind of rambling
Yes, it is.
Quote:
but those are a few points to get off my chest. I know I'm going to be branded a peace loving idealistic out of touch with reality hippy pussy, but hey some of the things I said are true, I like others don't know how to make an idealistic utopia and make these things work in real life, but if people would stop looking at issues the same old way, maybe more discussion would come of the issues and we could reach a clear concensus or an effective alternative.
What would some of those alternatives be?
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
General reply: You libertarians are always saying how you don't trust the government to work properly, yet you trust them with the power to decide who lives and who dies?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
I'm not a libertarian. I don't know why you are lashing outwith hostlility, lets keep it somewhate civil in here. The FEDERAL government isn't deciding, it's just allowing it. The court system, usualy on a local level, makes the decision about who to execute. More specificlaly, the jurors. Not some defunt "gubment in warshinton"
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Quote: silversoul7 said: Gee, how long did it take ya to figure that one out? Now figure out a way to do that, smart guy.
Ok, well, using my example from earlier, if a person is obvously guilty. If their blood is on the knife handle, their DNA from defense/scratch marks under the victims fingernails, 15 people saw them do it, it was videotaped by the criminal, he confessed to it, then he showed prosecutors the bodies of 15 people he'd killed and stored under his floorboards. THAT is guilty enough. Now, if you think that that person should be executed, you aren't against the death penalty, you just want t obe SURE that they are guilty or innocent, which I do as well, that is why a sentance of death would require specific types of proof to be handed down.
"smart guy" seems a bit unnecessary...
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
A snippet from this, a letter by Gov Pataki of NY when he reinstated the death penalty. Stats are at the link, this struck me tho...
Quote:
Arthur Shawcross (left) was paroled after serving 15 years for the brutal rape and murder of two children in upstate New York. In a subsequent 21 month killing spree, he took 11 more lives before being caught. Serial killer Nathaniel White triggered this outburst from the mother of one of his victims: "I have to go to the cemetery to see my daughter. Nathaniel White's mother goes to jail to see him and I don't think it's fair." With the death penalty reinstated in New York, such ruthless killers will face execution, rather than being released from prison for good behavior.
Had he been executed, 11 more people would be alive. It's just that simple.
"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
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) Innocence List (?Innocence: Freed from Death Row?) is frequently cited as support for the claim that 102 innocent prisoners have been released from Death Rows across the nation.[2] This list is uncritically accepted as definitive. However, an examination of the premises and sources of the List raises serious questions about whether many of the allegedly innocent prisoners named on the List are actually innocent at all.
Analysis of the cases on the List suggests that the List exaggerates the number of inaccurate convictions. For many of its cases, the List jumps to conclusions and misstates the implications of what has happened in the various cases that it cites as involving ?actually innocent? defendants. The DPIC ?falsely exonerates? many of the former Death Row members on its List and misleads the public about the frequency of wrongful convictions in terms of appraising the current capital punishment system in this country.
In fact, it is arguable that at least 68 of the 102 defendants on the List should not be on the List at all?leaving only 34 released defendants with claims of actual innocence?less than ? of 1% of the 6,930 defendants sentenced to death between 1973 and 2000.
read on...
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Post Extras:
Anonymous
Re: Death Penalty-Did you know such a lack of sense was poss [Re: Phred] #2096863 - 11/12/03 01:16 PM (9 years, 6 months ago)
Not to quibble, but so far you are not arguing any such thing. You are asserting it baldly as if it is self evident. It is far from self evident.
true enough. what do you think about that? is revenge alone a justifiable use of force?
What comments do you have on my "alternate days of the week" thought experiment?
you said:
If you think the death penalty is not a deterrent, ask yourself if the distribution of murders committed by day of the week would change if the law were altered so that murders committed on a Sunday, Tuesday, and Friday were punishable by death and those committed on the other days of the week were punishable by life imprisonment.
i think there would probably be less crime commited on the days where the death penalty was in effect.... but persuading a killer to switch what day of the week they commit their crime is alot different then persuading them not to commit it altogether...
but this does prove at least some level of deterrence, and this alone could be enough to justify the execution of murderers i suppose.
To assert that, since murders still take place, the death penalty isn't a deterrant, is to say that since all crime takes place, the entire criminal justice system isn't a deterrant.
Another reason that it's not as effective as a deterrant as it could be. It hardly ever happens! Most murderers end up with life in prison, rather than an execution. If people knew that the system DID punish murderes by execution, rather than a 15 year average sentance before the execution, it would be a more tangible form of punishment. People would be able to connect the murder that happened 2 years ago with the man being executed. The way it happens now, people have no mental tie between the crime and the punishment.
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
It is really warped because many people who commit crimes A. don't think they are going to get caught so they dont have to worry about teh death penalty and B. Might just not care or even think death is better than living. A lot of times criminals are very strung out people so death to them seems like the only way out. It is even more ridiculous that we allow the state to kill someone but not let someone who is not a criminal kill themselvs. It would imply to the criminal that if you want to kill yourself you can do something really bad and just have the state do it for you.
Arthur Shawcross (left) was paroled after serving 15 years for the brutal rape and murder of two children in upstate New York. In a subsequent 21 month killing spree, he took 11 more lives before being caught. Serial killer Nathaniel White triggered this outburst from the mother of one of his victims: "I have to go to the cemetery to see my daughter. Nathaniel White's mother goes to jail to see him and I don't think it's fair." With the death penalty reinstated in New York, such ruthless killers will face execution, rather than being released from prison for good behavior.
No one needs to be executed.Modern society has the means to incarcerate the criminally insane.The rest can be rehabilitated.Ah,Fuck it.It's so much easier to kill them and forget them.
-------------------- Once the mighty oak,was a nut who held his ground.
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1 1,249 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
