The Death Sentance

[Gripper]

do you agree with it,yes or no.

I believe they should bring it back in Britain,with todays scientific expertise we can be sure that we have the right person.

I believe it would deter a lot of the violence we have to endure in our society nowadays,when someone here gets sentanced to life imprisonment for murder they should rot for life not be allowed out after 10-15 years.

[Rip The Jacker]

Really... it depends on the crime...

[MCHeshPants420]

I believe they should bring it back in Britain,with todays scientific expertise we can be sure that we have the right person.



I think you've been watching too much CSI.

But no, even if we had CSI-like mad skillz, I'm against the death penalty.

[mushmush]

I believe they should bring it back in Britain,with todays scientific expertise we can be sure that we have the right person.



I think you've been watching too much CSI.

But no, even if we had CSI-like mad skillz, I'm against the death penalty.

Even if some pedo was to do nasty things to your child then kill them and it was proven 150% that he did it. you would still be against the Death penalty?

[MCHeshPants420]

I think you've been watching too much CSI.

But no, even if we had CSI-like mad skillz, I'm against the death penalty.

Even if some pedo was to do nasty things to your child then kill them and it was proven 150% that he did it. you would still be against the Death penalty?

Yes.

But how do you prove something 150%? The CSI-ness is bad enough but now we can prove things 150%?

[Ava Estelle]

Having been in prison, I consider life behind bars to be a bigger punishment.

What I disagree with is early parole.

[Agrajag]

I disagree with the death penalty, as I have explained before.

It does not prevent crime, it does not rehabilitate anyone and is purely for revenge. How does that make us a better society.

I do agree however that for some crimes life should mean life. There should be no parole, they should be left to rot. However that should only be for the worst crimes.

I say all of the above even if we were 200% sure who was guilty.

[CrabGirl]

I think you've been watching too much CSI.

But no, even if we had CSI-like mad skillz, I'm against the death penalty.

Even if some pedo was to do nasty things to your child then kill them and it was proven 150% that he did it. you would still be against the Death penalty?

To keep someone alive without freedom, to deny them access to their loved ones or things, to shame them every single day, to humiliate them, to take away their rights, including the right to die, and to make them suffer is a better way to punish someone than giving them the early release of death.

I also think that drugs trials should be performed on lifers and all sex offenders be permanently chemically castrated, but hey, maybe that's just me.

[ahctlucabbuS]

I believe it would deter a lot of the violence we have to endure in our society nowadays,when someone here gets sentanced to life imprisonment for murder they should rot for life not be allowed out after 10-15 years.Well, you only need to take a look at other countries practicing the death penalty to see that's not the case...

I could go on, but... what Agrajag said.

[ilw]

do you agree with it,yes or no.

I believe they should bring it back in Britain,with todays scientific expertise we can be sure that we have the right person.

I believe it would deter a lot of the violence we have to endure in our society nowadays,when someone here gets sentanced to life imprisonment for murder they should rot for life not be allowed out after 10-15 years.

have you ever thought how long 15 years actually is? if you went to jail now, how old would you be when you come out? personally i'd be 40 and right now that seems a long way off to me


ps sentence

[Ava Estelle]

.. have you ever thought how long 15 years actually is? if you went to jail now, how old would you be when you come out? personally i'd be 40 and right now that seems a long way off to me.

You obviously have little idea how long 15 years is, 15 years ago you were only 10.

If I had killed your parents when I arrived in Australia, and served 15 years, I would have been out 9 years ago, when you were 16 ... how would you handle that?

It's not just the offenders we have to think of, but the victims' families, why should killers walk the streets?

[Skweeky]

Definitely against it.

I agree with JP and Crabgirl.

It's also not our place to judge, no matter what that person has done.

Let them rot in jail in solitary confinement if we're 100% sure of their guilt.

[MCHeshPants420]

Even if some pedo was to do nasty things to your child then kill them and it was proven 150% that he did it. you would still be against the Death penalty?

To keep someone alive without freedom, to deny them access to their loved ones or things, to shame them every single day, to humiliate them, to take away their rights, including the right to die, and to make them suffer is a better way to punish someone than giving them the early release of death.

I also think that drugs testing should be performed on lifers and all sex offenders be permanently chemically castrated, but hey, maybe that's just me.

[GepperRankins]

life in prison is more of a deterrent than death :dabs:

[j2k4]

Many think they know my opinion on this issue.

Ha! :whistling

[Ava Estelle]

Many think they know my opinion on this issue.

Ha! :whistling

Names?

[j2k4]

Many think they know my opinion on this issue.

Ha! :whistling

Names?

You, for one.

[Ava Estelle]

Names?

You, for one.

Not who's better looking and more intelligent, I meant who thinks they know your opinion?

[j2k4]

You, for one.

I meant who thinks they know your opinion?

Yes, I know.

[vidcc]

I agree with the death penalty in principle but as I've said many times before there should be no doubt, not just beyond reasonable doubt. The system we have now doesn't meet that standard.
There are some cases where it is achieved but mostly IMO it is not.

I totally agree that it's not a deterrent, it's purely for revenge and solves nothing, but I still agree with it in principle.

As to the whole death being the easy out. That an easy thing to say and a compelling argument. In some cases may even be true. But the human will to survive is a funny thing, people will do some amazing things to stay alive. They will kill other innocent people out of the will to survive.They will co-operate with the most immoral inhumane acts.

Death for most is not easy. Reading some of the above it "appears" that some object to it not because they feel it's inhumane, but because it's not inhumane enough.

[j2k4]

I disagree with the death penalty, as I have explained before.

It does not prevent crime...

How can you say that?



To keep someone alive without freedom, to deny them access to their loved ones or things, to shame them every single day, to humiliate them, to take away their rights, including the right to die, and to make them suffer is a better way to punish someone than giving them the early release of death.

I don't know how things are in the U.K., but here in the U.S., shaming or humiliating prisoners, or taking away their rights (BTW-where is the "right to die" enumerated?) is frowned upon.


I also think that drugs trials should be performed on lifers and all sex offenders be permanently chemically castrated, but hey, maybe that's just me.

Oh, complete agreement, there.

Absolutely and without reservation.

[Busyman™]

I also think that drugs trials should be performed on lifers and all sex offenders be permanently chemically castrated, but hey, maybe that's just me.

Great idea.

[Busyman™]

Definitely against it.

I agree with JP and Crabgirl.

It's also not our place to judge, no matter what that person has done.

Let them rot in jail in solitary confinement if we're 100% sure of their guilt.

Not our place to judge? How would a person get sentenced?:dabs:

[Ava Estelle]

I disagree with the death penalty, as I have explained before.

It does not prevent crime...


How can you say that?

How can you say it does? Has the murder rate increased in any US state that has abolished the death penalty?

[Busyman™]

Anyone that says the death penalty is not a deterrent makes no sense at all.

Saying that is saying that death can't be a deterrent, as if no one is afraid to die.

That's bullshit. Search yourselves and think. Are you merely looking at the fact that people still commit murders to say that the death penalty isn't a deterrent? Is it a numbers game?

"See, he killed her in a death penalty state. He wasn't deterred.":wacko:

Besides that, if one says that the penalty serves no purpose, I disagree.

Eliminating a person from the state having to take care of them eliminates a huge financial burden. Also one thing going against the death penalty is the length of time it takes to actually put a person to death and the beyond a reasonable doubt crap.

The evidence to put someone to death should be beyond overwhelming and not just "well we felt it was just enough evidence".

I'm for the death penalty in certain heinous murder cases but I wish there some way to just exile the motherfuckers. I wish there was a "prison" that you'd just dump the convict in that the rest of society wouldn't have to pay for or manage in any way.

Absent that, let's bring back the firing squad, hangings, or institute "beat the shit out of a motherfucker" or simply "bust their head to the white meat with a large rock".

Humane death penalties are de dumest ting on de ert.

[thewizeard]

...not even if it would bring all of those he inhumanely murdered, back to life.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Busyman™]

I disagree with the death penalty, as I have explained before.

It does not prevent crime...



How can you say it does? Has the murder rate increased in any US state that has abolished the death penalty?

Do you think there is no one that thought about that punishment and decided to fuck off instead of committing that crime.

Tbh, I think it's less of deterrent cuz the punishment isn't clear to the public. It's an extreme punishment that one rarely hears about happening or better yet, sees happening.

I think it needs public "in your face" treatment. Death is horrific and needs to be seen as such.

People are gonna take chances but if faced with what actually happens, they are less likely.

People still fuck raw dawg even though AIDS is out there ffs. They think it won't happen to them.
I bet if there were folks around them with the monkey, they'd think again.

[Agrajag]

Absent that, let's bring back the firing squad, hangings, or institute "beat the shit out of a motherfucker" or simply "bust their head to the white meat with a large rock".

Humane death penalties are de dumest ting on de ert.

[Ava Estelle]

That's bullshit. Search yourselves and think. Are you merely looking at the fact that people still commit murders to say that the death penalty isn't a deterrent? Is it a numbers game?

Yes it's a numbers game, how else can you gauge whether or not the death penalty is more of a deterrent than life in prison?

If that were true the figures would bear it out, in states that stopped executing people the murder rate would go up, in states that re-introduced it, the murder rate would decrease.

Is that the case?

[j2k4]

I disagree with the death penalty, as I have explained before.

It does not prevent crime...



How can you say it does? Has the murder rate increased in any US state that has abolished the death penalty?

I can say that it does because nobody who has ever been put to death for murder has ever murdered again.

Would you care to argue the fact at all (at all).

For you to say that it does not deter would require that you somehow determine precisely how many people do or do not kill based on the existence (or not) of a death penalty.

Would you please tell us how you would go about gathering reliable data relative to that point.

[Ava Estelle]

I can say that it does because nobody who has ever been put to death for murder has ever murdered again.
How many people sentenced to life without parole have killed again?


Would you care to argue the fact at all (at all).
I just did.


For you to say that it does not deter would require that you somehow determine precisely how many people do or do not kill based on the existence (or not) of a death penalty.
The exact same criteria applies to your assumption that it's a deterrent.


Would you please tell us how you would go about gathering reliable data relative to that point.
I already did. Certain states in the US have stopped executions, others have started again after a period of no executions. All these states have facts and figures on murders committed when there were no executions, and when there were.

You seem quite capable of quoting figures when they support your argument, let's see some now. :)

.

[Agrajag]

One can only look at such a thing by comparing like with like, at least on the face of it. I a sure criminologists and the like have more complex methods but I'm not one of them.

In which case one must compare states which have the death penalty to those which do not have the death penalty (or potential for it). More specifically, one must compare similar demographic areas, cross states, to see which if any has lower crime rates. Specifically for crimes which would carry the death penalty.

I don't know the answer to this, however it must surely be for those who wish to kill in the name of the state to show that it is an effective deterrent, rather than for those who oppose it to prove that it is not.

I'm agin it even if it is an effective deterrent, but that's another story.

[Busyman™]

How many people sentenced to life without parole have killed again?


Would you care to argue the fact at all (at all).
I just did.


For you to say that it does not deter would require that you somehow determine precisely how many people do or do not kill based on the existence (or not) of a death penalty.
The exact same criteria applies to your assumption that it's a deterrent.


Would you please tell us how you would go about gathering reliable data relative to that point.
I already did. Certain states in the US have stopped executions, others have started again after a period of no executions. All these states have facts and figures on murders committed when there were no executions, and when there were.

You seem quite capable of quoting figures when they support your argument, let's see some now. :)

.

Is life without parole a deterrent?

Okay then, now is death a deterrent?

I am more afraid to die than to be put in jail. I think most people are.

[Agrajag]

Then again, perhaps it reflects the type of Govenment people choose for themselves.

Just conjecture, however is it possible that people who are more likely to offer violence are likely to choose a government that feels the same way.

[Agrajag]

This is interesting


As executions rose, states without the death penalty fared much better than states with the death penalty in reducing their murder rates. The gap between the murder rate in death penalty states and the non-death penalty states grew larger (as shown in Chart II). In 1990, the murder rates in these two groups were 4% apart. By 2000, the murder rate in the death penalty states was 35% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty. In 2001, the gap between non-death penalty states and states with the death penalty again grew, reaching 37%. For 2002, the number stands at 36%.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DeterMRates3.GIF

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DeterMRates2.GIF

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/php/article.php?scid=12&did=168

[Agrajag]

NB before you complain about it being old stats the same site does figures for 2000 - 2005 which shows the trend continuing. Indeed the difference keeps rising.

[Ava Estelle]

Is life without parole a deterrent?

Okay then, now is death a deterrent?

I am more afraid to die than to be put in jail. I think most people are.

You tell me, on the face of it there is no deterrent in your country, you had more murders last year than Australia had last century, does that say something about Americans, or your penal system?

[Busyman™]

I'm wondering if anyone is assuming a cause/effect relationship.

"See, because you have the death penalty, the murder rate is rising."

"Hell I killed a person in this state cuz I knew I wouldn't get life but I would get death.":wacko:

[Ava Estelle]

NB before you complain about it being old stats the same site does figures for 2000 - 2005 which shows the trend continuing. Indeed the difference keeps rising.

Oh dear, red faces all round it seems! :lol:

[Busyman™]

nvm

[Busyman™]

Is life without parole a deterrent?

Okay then, now is death a deterrent?

I am more afraid to die than to be put in jail. I think most people are.

You tell me, on the face of it there is no deterrent in your country, you had more murders last year than Australia had last century, does that say something about Americans, or your penal system?

We also have the third largest population in the world. Out of probably the top 20 most populous cities, we probably have the most freedom.

Oh and our penal system sucks. It coddles too much. Anytime there are folks willing to be put in jail just for food and shelter, it doesn't speak too highly of prison as a deterrent.

I doubt Australia is in the top 50 most populous countries.

[Agrajag]

NB before you complain about it being old stats the same site does figures for 2000 - 2005 which shows the trend continuing. Indeed the difference keeps rising.

Oh dear, red faces all round it seems! :lol:

Being America "round faces all red" is probably more apt. :O

[Agrajag]

...we probably have the most freedom.



Yeah, you're also the bravest.

[Skiz]

I can say that it does because nobody who has ever been put to death for murder has ever murdered again.


How many people sentenced to life without parole have killed again?

The ones that are put to death won't kill again. The ones in prison for life do sometimes escape and kill again. Fact.

[Busyman™]

...we probably have the most freedom.



Yeah, you're also the brazenest.

Fixed with tape.

[vidcc]

How many people sentenced to life without parole have killed again?
I can't give you exact figures on this one point but I can tell you that the number of prison guards killed by inmates is not zero. Nor the number of inmates killed by other inmates.

For that matter I can't say that all murders committed by inmates are by those that were serving life for murder, but I can tell you that the number of murders committed by inmates serving life for murder is not zero :wacko:

[Busyman™]

How many people sentenced to life without parole have killed again?

The ones that are put to death won't kill again. The ones in prison for life do sometimes escape and kill again. Fact.

They also kill in prison.

There was instance recently where an escaped prisoner killed 2 people including a cop. 5 correctional officers were stabbed in jail recently also (but not killed).

[Agrajag]

Is it a deterrent for the individual who dies, obviously.

Is it a deterrent overall, does it reduce the murder rate, no. Fact.

At least vid is honest about this, he accepts that it is no more than revenge.

The deterrent argument is simply not borne out by the facts. Fact.

[Busyman™]

Some people are deterred by their religion.

Some by the threat of death.

Can one assume that the death penalty creates murderers. No?

Is the only thing achieved by the death penalty simply revenge. No. Fact.

Food and shelter for the rest of one's life versus nothing. Pretty simple.

It's nice to know that after some fuck has murdered your family that he'll get 3 squares a day plus a warm bed for the rest of his life paid for by YOU.

Revenge? Sure. Finance? Quite obviously.

Now application is another story.

[Ava Estelle]

We also have the third largest population in the world. Out of probably the top 20 most populous cities, we probably have the most freedom.

Oh and our penal system sucks. It coddles too much. Anytime there are folks willing to be put in jail just for food and shelter, it doesn't speak too highly of prison as a deterrent.

I doubt Australia is in the top 50 most populous countries.

That's why there are per capita figures. The murder rate in the US in 2005 was 56 per million of population, in Australia it was 15.

[Agrajag]

Can one assume that the death penalty creates murderers. No?



What does that even mean.

[Agrajag]

.

It's nice to know that after some fuck has murdered your family that he'll get 3 squares a day plus a warm bed for the rest of his life paid for by YOU.


I've already explained this bit too. If it was up to me they would work for their food and board. If they didn't work they wouldn't get fed.

I also wouldn't allow them cigarettes, tv, coffee etc. I'm all for the "hard labour" option for the type of crimes you would advocate the death penalty.

In fact isn't there a state, or a local Sheriff, which does that type of thing. Refuses to give prisoners coffee and supplies only water.

[Busyman™]

We also have the third largest population in the world. Out of probably the top 20 most populous cities, we probably have the most freedom.

Oh and our penal system sucks. It coddles too much. Anytime there are folks willing to be put in jail just for food and shelter, it doesn't speak too highly of prison as a deterrent.

I doubt Australia is in the top 50 most populous countries.

That's why there are per capita figures. The murder rate in the US in 2005 was 56 per million of population, in Australia it was 15.

You didn't say per capita though.

Per capita can't be the only other factor you look at. There are particular population densities, laws, immigration issues, ethnic makeup, political unrest and so forth.

[GepperRankins]

How many people sentenced to life without parole have killed again?

The ones that are put to death won't kill again. The ones in prison for life do sometimes escape and kill again. Fact.
does this number outweigh the difference between the states that have the death penalty and the ones that dont?

[Ava Estelle]

Per capita can't be the only other factor you look at. There are particular population densities, laws, immigration issues, ethnic makeup, political unrest and so forth.

Why is there? Murder is murder, why complicate things, or do you think Australia has none of these issues?

[vidcc]

In fact isn't there a state, or a local Sheriff, which does that type of thing. Refuses to give prisoners coffee and supplies only water.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/

It's not for the really dangerous convicts.

[Busyman™]

.

It's nice to know that after some fuck has murdered your family that he'll get 3 squares a day plus a warm bed for the rest of his life paid for by YOU.


I've already explained this bit too. If it was up to me they would work for their food and board. If they didn't work they wouldn't get fed.

I also wouldn't allow them cigarettes, tv, coffee etc. I'm all for the "hard labour" option for the type of crimes you would advocate the death penalty.

In fact isn't there a state, or a local Sheriff, which does that type of thing. Refuses to give prisoners coffee and supplies only water.

I must agree with you there.

Change the makeup of the penal system absent the death penalty first.

Unfortunately, there will still be those hardest of the hard that won't along and will need a boot to the teeth.

For any of this to work properly, financially or deterrent-wise, it needs proper application.

The fella you are talking about I think is in Arizona, spinningfreemanny brought him up in a post awhile ago and I never forgot it.

[Agrajag]

In fact isn't there a state, or a local Sheriff, which does that type of thing. Refuses to give prisoners coffee and supplies only water.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/

It's not for the really dangerous convicts.

That's the fella. Thanks for that.

I'd use his ideas and make the convicts pay their own way. I would make it clear to other potential offenders that's what they could look forward to.

I would also grade the treatment on the offence. So people would get a length of time and a degree of harshness.

[vidcc]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/

It's not for the really dangerous convicts.

That's the fella. Thanks for that.

I'd use his ideas and make the convicts pay their own way. I would make it clear to other potential offenders that's what they could look forward to.

I would also grade the treatment on the offence. So people would get a length of time and a degree of harshness.

I doubt you would be amazed to find out that I am not for coddling convicts (the ones permitted to live;) ) either.

However I can't say that as a deterrent his system works better than any other. I am sure I read somewhere that he was considering extending the "prison" because he was running out of space. Perhaps it does more to deter re offenders than deterring someone from committing an offense in the first place, but then I have no idea how many return and am just guessing that it may because of the type of offender in that program. (minor criminals)

[Agrajag]

That's the fella. Thanks for that.

I'd use his ideas and make the convicts pay their own way. I would make it clear to other potential offenders that's what they could look forward to.

I would also grade the treatment on the offence. So people would get a length of time and a degree of harshness.

I doubt you would be amazed to find out that I am not for coddling convicts (the ones permitted to live;) ) either.

However I can't say that as a deterrent his system works better than any other. I am sure I read somewhere that he was considering extending the "prison" because he was running out of space. Perhaps it does more to deter re offenders than deterring someone from committing an offense in the first place, but then I have no idea how many return and am just guessing that it may because of the type of offender in that program. (minor criminals)

It's good revenge but. ;)

To me it's also an acceptable alternative to the death penalty.

It really isn't a choice between killing them or coddling them (not aimed at you). There really must be the "hard labour" option. To me if you kill someone then your human rights (other than life itself) are forfeit. So punish them, make them pay their own way, give them no treats. Trust me a lot of these bastards will ask to be killed after having to live that way for a while.

Or am a I being too "liberal" here.

[Gripper]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/
This guy has the right idea,

We all hear stories about prisoners civil rights being abused,IMO when you commit crimes against society,you effectivly give up your civil rights as you have no regard for anyone elses civil rights.

The people who should get sentenced to death should be executed only if there is no doubt,such as killing a person in front of 6 or more eyewitnesses,caught on videotape or 100% evidence,such as DNA found on one victim matching DNA found on another victim.

As for paedophiles,castration should be the least of their punishments,I know from personal experience that they do go out and reoffend when they are released from prison.
So prison time is no deterrent for these things.

[ilw]

This week, after a major government report, we heard that one murder a week is committed by someone with psychiatric problems. Psychiatrists should do better, the newspapers told us, and prevent more of these murders.

It’s great to want to reduce psychiatric violence. It’s great to have a public debate about the ethics of preventive detention (for psychiatric patients and other potential risk groups, perhaps). Before you career off and have that vital conversation, you need to understand the maths of predicting very rare events.

Let’s take the very concrete example of the HIV test. The figures here are ballpark, for illustration only. So: what do we measure about a test? Statisticians would say the HIV blood test has a very high “sensitivity” of 0.999. That means that if you do have the virus, there is a 99.9% chance that the blood test will be positive. Statisticians would also say the test has a high “specificity” of 0.9999 - so if a man is not infected, there is a 99.99% chance that the test will be negative. What a smashing blood test.

But if you look at it from the perspective of the person being tested, the maths gets slightly counterintuitive. Because weirdly, the meaning, the predictive value, of a positive or negative test that an individual gets, is changed in different situations, depending on the background rarity of the event that the test is trying to detect. The rarer the event in your population, the worse the very same test becomes.

Let’s say the HIV infection rate amongst high risk men in a particular area is 1.5%. We use our excellent blood test on 10,000 of these men and we can expect 151 positive blood results overall: 150 will be our truly HIV positive men, who will get true positive blood tests; and one will be the one false positive we could expect, from having 10,000 HIV negative men being tested with a test that is wrong one time in 10,000. So, if you get a positive HIV blood test result, in these circumstances your chances of being truly HIV positive are 150 out of 151. It’s a highly predictive test.

But now let’s use the same test where the background HIV infection rate in the population is about one in 10,000. If we test 10,000 people, we can expect two positive blood results overall. One from the person who really is HIV positive; and then one false positive that we could expect, again, from having 10,000 HIV negative men being tested with a test that is wrong one time in 10,000.

Suddenly, when the background rate of an event is rare, even our previously brilliant blood test becomes a bit rubbish. For the two men with a positive HIV blood test result, in this population where one in 10,000 have HIV it’s only 50:50 odds on whether you really are HIV positive.

Now let’s look at violence. The best predictive tool for psychiatric violence has a “sensitivity” of 0.75, and a “specificity” of 0.75. Accuracy is tougher, predicting an event in humans, with human minds, and changing human lives. Let’s say 5% of patients seen by a community mental health team will be involved in a violent event in a year. Using the same maths as we did for the HIV tests, your “0.75″ predictive tool would be wrong 86 times out of 100. For serious violence, occurring at 1% a year, with our best “0.75″ tool, you inaccurately finger your potential perpetrator 97 times out of a hundred. Will you preventively detain 97 people to prevent three events? And for murder, the extremely rare crime in question, occurring at one in 10,000 a year among patients with psychosis? The false positive rate is so high that the best test is almost entirely useless. I’m just giving you the maths on rare events. What you do with it is a matter for you.
from www.badscience.net

[Barbarossa]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/
This guy has the right idea,

We all hear stories about prisoners civil rights being abused,IMO when you commit crimes against society,you effectivly give up your civil rights as you have no regard for anyone elses civil rights.

I agree completely with this statement. Therefore I voted yes to the death penalty, because I think it's insane to spend taxpayers money keeping these people alive indefinitely.

The prisons are too overcrowded anyway. We need to bring the death penalty back, for the cell-space, like.

[Snee]

Well, if they can make sure that all people sentenced to it are guilty, and that those people are incorrigible, and that they will pose a threat to the public if they aren't eliminated, then I'm for it.

Death penalty as a means to eliminate those sociopaths and whatnot who will only be a danger to society no matter what, as it were.

However, making absolutely sure the right people are eliminated would only be possible in a perfect world, and were we living in a perfect world we'd not need the death penalty in the first place.

So no.

[ilw]

I agree completely with this statement. Therefore I voted yes to the death penalty, because I think it's insane to spend taxpayers money keeping these people alive indefinitely.

what if they paid their own way (theoretically)

[Mr JP Fugley]

That's why I advocate the working thing.

[Barbarossa]

Pay their own way? I'd like them to make a net profit actually. Maybe we could sell off their organs ;)

[ilw]

and if they made a net profit

[vidcc]

While I agree with working prisoners there is a line that has to be observed.

Work carried out in communities should not be at the expense of local employees. Basically cheap prison labour should not be used to take jobs of local hardworking law abiding citizens to increase "the profit margin".
Prison workforces should not be allowed an unfair bidding advantage to undercut local firms and local firms should not be able to replace their staff with "cheaper convict labour".

[sgt_kermit]

This is an age old question that goes back to the beginning of time. I am sure that I will receive some flak for quoting scripture, but I don't care.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (KJV)

I agree with the death penalty, the reason I don't think it is a great deterrent is because it is not used properly. Compare the south with the northeast according to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=186 so I guess it also depends where you commit your crime! Don't commit a death penalty offense in the south, because they will actually follow through with it. Before some of you get your panties in a bunch I realize that there are only a few states in the northeast that have the death penalty.
I don't think that life in prison is a big deterrent either or we would not have over crowding in the prison system.

[JPaul]

I'm more of a New Testament man me'self. The old one is full of the shedding of blood and the turning into salt. The new one is more about love and forgiveness. Christ's message as it happens.

[Busyman™]

This is an age old question that goes back to the beginning of time. I am sure that I will receive some flak for quoting scripture, but I don't care.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (KJV)

I agree with the death penalty, the reason I don't think it is a great deterrent is because it is not used properly. Compare the south with the northeast according to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=186 so I guess it also depends where you commit your crime! Don't commit a death penalty offense in the south, because they will actually follow through with it. Before some of you get your panties in a bunch I realize that there are only a few states in the northeast that have the death penalty.
I don't think that life in prison is a big deterrent either or we would not have over crowding in the prison system.

I think what everyone is referring to is that the death penalty is not more of a deterrent than life in prison so it is useless.

I rather not have it if there is a viable alternative. However, I agree that if you are going to have the death penalty, do it properly and in a timely manner.

Also, make the requirements in proof for it more stringent. A death sentence should require overwhelmingly compelling evidence.

[Ava Estelle]

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (KJV)
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Matthew 7.1-5



I don't think that life in prison is a big deterrent either or we would not have over crowding in the prison system.


This is interesting


As executions rose, states without the death penalty fared much better than states with the death penalty in reducing their murder rates. The gap between the murder rate in death penalty states and the non-death penalty states grew larger (as shown in Chart II). In 1990, the murder rates in these two groups were 4% apart. By 2000, the murder rate in the death penalty states was 35% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty. In 2001, the gap between non-death penalty states and states with the death penalty again grew, reaching 37%. For 2002, the number stands at 36%.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DeterMRates3.GIF

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DeterMRates2.GIF

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/php/article.php?scid=12&did=168


You really are a nutcase kermit, you don't have an original thought of your own, all your authority comes from elsewhere. Baa!

:lol:

[vidcc]

The above recent posts demonstrate what I was talking about in the other thread.



I have no problem with people believing in god etc. I do however feel that in many "organised religions" the doctrines were rooted in the views preferable to the original members and as time went by this expanded so that the religion became a reflection of the followers viewpoint instead of the original profits.

Different people within one "church" can have differing views.

What form the second coming will be is one example.

The death penalty is a fine example of moral differences within Christianity. Some will say jesus was about forgiveness and point to the "first stone" story. Others will point to an eye for an eye.
Some will point to the ten commandments "shall not kill" to say the death sentence is wrong and that god should be the one that takes the life of the killer, not man. Basically people cherry pick to suit their own "agenda" and therefore make their "own brand" of whatever religion they profess to follow. This isn't a bad thing of course because for the most part people pick the "good things" to live by.
But it can be. Examples of people following fanatic demagogues instead of the original profits can be seen worldwide and many have suffered because of it.

Back to topic

On the deterrent part would it be fair to say that no matter what one prefers (jail/death/work////////) any deterrent factor is at limited.

Would it be fair to say that as a deterrent one works better than the other overall (without stating which), but neither works for everyone.

Would it then be fair to say (ignoring morals arguments and concentrating on the deterrent factor) that having both options and the potential criminal has no way of knowing which will be applied should they be caught, could have more of a deterrent factor (limited) than removing one option.

Would it be fair to say that I am overusing "Would it be fair to say" in this post :unsure:

[sgt_kermit]

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Matthew 7.1-5




You really are a nutcase kermit, you don't have an original thought of your own, all your authority comes from elsewhere. Baa!

:lol:

You quote Matthew 7:1-5 which states not to judge, but in the same post you judge me, you better head to the sawmill I'm sure they can take that log out for you.

I was not disagreeing with the charts provided, what I said was neither is a big deterrent. If it were then we would not need so many prisons.

[Ava Estelle]

You quote Matthew 7:1-5 which states not to judge, but in the same post you judge me ..

That's OK, I'm not a Christian, so I don't come under your silly rules, I'm able to think for myself, and judge!

[JPaul]

Can you Atheists make your minds up. One's saying we pick what we want and the other's saying we can't think for ourselves.

Try to be consistent ffs.

[bunny67]

i agree on the death sentence for peodos,perverts and rapists.

[Mr JP Fugley]

i agree on the death sentence for peodos,perverts and rapists.

Thanks for the input.

Whose particular definition of the word pervert are you using.

[j2k4]

Can you Atheists make your minds up. One's saying we pick what we want and the other's saying we can't think for ourselves.

Try to be consistent ffs.

You haven't tumbled to the fact atheists abhor and reject consistency in their own conduct, yet demand it of others.

I tip my hat to Ava, though, who is nonetheless fully committed to being judgmental; there's a good girl. :)

[Fulanito]

poor bastard...

[Mr JP Fugley]

Can you Atheists make your minds up. One's saying we pick what we want and the other's saying we can't think for ourselves.

Try to be consistent ffs.

You haven't tumbled to the fact atheists abhor and reject consistency in their own conduct, yet demand it of others.

I tip my hat to Ava, though, who is nonetheless fully committed to being judgmental; there's a good girl. :)

Devout atheists are my favourite. Fact.

[NA_Magus]

The death sentence should only be brought onto criminals under special circumstances like those who've committed multiple homocides. One murder may seem enough to some people for the criminal to get the death penalty but depending on the case I'd say life in prison. Pedos and rapists should also get a very long term sentences. I do believe that the death sentence is a deterrent.

[ahctlucabbuS]

On the deterrent part would it be fair to say that no matter what one prefers (jail/death/work////////) any deterrent factor is at limited.

I'd think so. If you think about the emotional violator, which I would assume to be the most prevalent out there, any deterrent present would at best be marginally represented somewhere in the back of his/her head; most likely, totally absent.

Given this, the deterrent needs to be adequate enough as to curtain the cynical law breaker (i.e the "cold blooded killer"). Any harsher penalty (say a longer prison sentence) would potentially only lead to social problems like hardened criminals for instance. Not to mention prison expenses that could be used in more creative ways (rehabilitation).


As such, the death penalty seem horribly overkill purely from a rational point of view. Then again revenge isn't rational.

From a moral point of view, one can question how government sanctioned murder in a clinical, detached manner holds up ethically compared to the emotionally driven murderer acting in the moment.

I tend to see both as wrong.


On a side note. Norway has a maximum prison sentence of about 20 years for first degree murder. Our homicide rate is way lower than the US, lower than Canada, resembling those of the UK. I certainly don't believe raising the penalties would have any positive effect on crime rates.

[vidcc]

On a side note. Norway has a maximum prison sentence of about 20 years for first degree murder. Our homicide rate is way lower than the US, lower than Canada, resembling those of the UK. I certainly don't believe raising the penalties would have any positive effect on crime rates.

I think there may be other social variables than just the way the penal systems are run.

[vidcc]

You haven't tumbled to the fact atheists abhor and reject consistency in their own conduct, yet demand it of others.
care to give an example of what an atheist (as part of being an atheist dictates) is demanding of others that they don't demand of themselves?

As far as I am aware the only thing needed to be classed an atheist is not believing in any god. There are no dictates in atheism as to how to lead ones life. There is individual consistency but as Atheism doesn't follow set rules other than not believing in any god, how could there be a group inconsistency?
As far as I Know the only possible inconsistency there could be as part of being an atheist is saying there is no god......except this one:unsure: which wouldn't be an atheist.


I know some like to call it a religion, nonetheless it's certainly not a "single religion" rather a million+ different religions.

[GepperRankins]

lololololol why do people think atheism is like a cult or something? i'd hate to be all cliche but it's a sort of think for yourself thing

[vidcc]

I will admit though that some Atheists take it more seriously than others and are big headed enough to think they can make suggestions for other atheists to follow.This has nothing to do with the author being an atheist and everything to do with him being egotistical.
That or I am not an atheist but instead just someone that doesn't believe in god:unsure:


THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (OF THE ETHICAL ATHEIST)

NOTE: Free thought and tolerance obviously prohibit these from being "commandments"! Just consider them "suggestions".


1. Thou SHALT NOT believe all thou art told.
2. Thou SHALT seek knowledge and truth constantly.
3. Thou SHALT educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science.
4. Thou SHALT NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of god.
5. Thou SHALT leave valuable contributions for future generations.
6. Thou SHALT live in peace with thy fellow man.
7. Thou SHALT live this one life thou hast to its fullest.
8. Thou SHALT follow a Personal Code of Ethics.
9. Thou SHALT maintain a strict separation between Church and State.
10. Thou SHALT support those who follow these commandments.


source (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/ten_commandments.html)

[Snee]

lololololol why do people think atheism is like a cult or something? i'd hate to be all cliche but it's a sort of think for yourself thing

Mang, it's practically a religion, as I always say.

Atheists believe that there is no god, christians (for instance) believe that there is one.

Neither can be proved, both are beliefs. And lots of atheist loooove telling others that there is no God, and pointing out the flaws the think they see in the belief systems of others, like some bunch of Jehova's witnesses in reverse.


The only way not to believe I know, is to be an agnostic (if one has to have labels on these things).

AFAIAC, atheists are pretty much religious.

[ahctlucabbuS]

On a side note. Norway has a maximum prison sentence of about 20 years for first degree murder. Our homicide rate is way lower than the US, lower than Canada, resembling those of the UK. I certainly don't believe raising the penalties would have any positive effect on crime rates.

I think there may be other social variables than just the way the penal systems are run.

Sure. However you don't have to go all bananas with the shock machine to have a working deterrent, is my point.

[Ava Estelle]

You haven't tumbled to the fact atheists abhor and reject consistency in their own conduct, yet demand it of others.

I just know you're dying to explain this, so off you go, you've had all night to work something out. I'm sure ALL the atheists in the world are dying to know their common ills.

Religion: A cloak used by some persons in this world who will be warm enough without one in the next.

[MagicNakor]

Canada has a shock machine?

:shuriken:

[bigboab]

You haven't tumbled to the fact atheists abhor and reject consistency in their own conduct, yet demand it of others.

I just know you're dying to explain this, so off you go, you've had all night to work something out. I'm sure ALL the atheists in the world are dying to know their common ills.

Religion: A cloak used by some persons in this world who will be warm enough without one in the next.

I like the quote.:lol: It is, however, wasted with the implication that there is an after life.:rolleyes:

If we just regard the death sentence as a punishment rather than a deterrant, it might possibly:noes: change some of our views on the subject.

OH NO IT WON'T.:lol:

[ahctlucabbuS]

nm!

[bornwithnoname]

I will admit though that some Atheists take it more seriously than others and are big headed enough to think they can make suggestions for other atheists to follow.This has nothing to do with the author being an atheist and everything to do with him being egotistical.
That or I am not an atheist but instead just someone that doesn't believe in god:unsure:


THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (OF THE ETHICAL ATHEIST)

NOTE: Free thought and tolerance obviously prohibit these from being "commandments"! Just consider them "suggestions".


1. Thou SHALT NOT believe all thou art told.
2. Thou SHALT seek knowledge and truth constantly.
3. Thou SHALT educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science.
4. Thou SHALT NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of god.
5. Thou SHALT leave valuable contributions for future generations.
6. Thou SHALT live in peace with thy fellow man.
7. Thou SHALT live this one life thou hast to its fullest.
8. Thou SHALT follow a Personal Code of Ethics.
9. Thou SHALT maintain a strict separation between Church and State.
10. Thou SHALT support those who follow these commandments.


source (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/ten_commandments.html)



Just because it was done in the name of God doesn't not mean He approved of it.

[BioSore]

I very much disagree with the death sentence. I've always felt strongly on the issue, but watching "The Life of David Gilmour" a few years back, it definitely became much stronger. It's cruel and unusual punishment, and it's always an ultimate decision. There's always a chance that the wrong man is found guilty and, upon finding evidence to show his innocence, it is already much too late.

[j2k4]

I very much disagree with the death sentence. I've always felt strongly on the issue, but watching "The Life of David Gilmour" a few years back, it definitely became much stronger. It's cruel and unusual punishment, and it's always an ultimate decision. There's always a chance that the wrong man is found guilty and, upon finding evidence to show his innocence, it is already much too late.

I think you mean Gary Gilmore.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I very much disagree with the death sentence. I've always felt strongly on the issue, but watching "The Life of David Gilmour" a few years back, it definitely became much stronger. It's cruel and unusual punishment, and it's always an ultimate decision. There's always a chance that the wrong man is found guilty and, upon finding evidence to show his innocence, it is already much too late.

:noes: Brain damage.

[Gripper]

I'd rather we kept Christianity and all religious points of view out of this discussion,seeing as how religion has caused more deaths,wars and suffering than anything else we have invented.

[midoss]

it depends on the crime...

[bigboab]

I'd rather we kept Christianity and all religious points of view out of this discussion,seeing as how religion has caused more deaths,wars and suffering than anything else we have invented.

Is that not similar to saying that cars kill people?:)

[Mr JP Fugley]

I'd rather we kept Christianity and all religious points of view out of this discussion,seeing as how religion has caused more deaths,wars and suffering than anything else we have invented.

Really, so politics and greed. Stealing other people's land and assets are a minor factor.

What exactly was the religious aspect to the first and second world wars.

Or more recently, people keep telling me that the Iraq thing is about oil. Is that not the case now.

People may have used religion as justification for wars, however I very much doubt that it was often the real reason.

[vidcc]

Without wishing to get into a name calling match here would it be a fair discussion point to suggest that much of "politics" historically is based on religion. We may not see it today in the same way as the "days of yore" but over years "religion" (not the belief in god) has caused much suffering. It has been used for good as well to be fair but that doesn't cancel out the bad.

However, the quote didn't say all wars and didn't say only wars.

seeing as how religion has caused more deaths,wars and suffering than anything else we have invented. Inquisitions, burning at the stake, torture and execution for heresy or breaking religious laws etc.


People may have used religion as justification for wars, however I very much doubt that it was often the real reason
I agree. As I argued on a different thread, Religion may not be the reason we go to war in the first place, certainly not in modern times, but it is used as a tool. It's stunning how many think we were attacked for no other reason than we are not Muslims.

Religion is a huge factor in civil wars and "ethnic cleansing" though.

It all depends on who's mind the religion resides as to how it's used. People use the same religion as a base for their intolerance that other use to be tolerant.

In the right hands religion can be a good thing, in the wrong hands it's among the most divisive and dangerous things invented.

In summary, religion isn't the problem itself, the problem is how it can and has been wielded as a weapon.

[Mr JP Fugley]

In summary, religion isn't the problem itself, the problem is how it can and has been wielded as a weapon.

In short, I totally agree.

It can be used as just another form of propaganda.

However the root reason for all of the deaths and wars and so forth is greed.

[viper1405]

I think the death sentence is fine, I mean hell the world is overpopulated. Whoever voted against the death sentence is a damn liberal democrat. No offense and no name calling, but you know you are. The democrats have taken over the house only because they pull crap out of there ass and make false promises. Dont let them take the presidancy!!

[Mr JP Fugley]

I think the death sentence is fine, I mean hell the world is overpopulated. Whoever voted against the death sentence is a damn liberal democrat. No offense and no name calling, but you know you are. The democrats have taken over the house only because they pull crap out of there ass and make false promises. Dont let them take the presidancy!!

See, wait long enough and the voice of reason appears.

[vidcc]

However the root reason for all of the deaths and wars and so forth is greed.
I think I might be just disagreeing on defining words, however (and this may be argued as being encompassed in "greed"), I would say the root reason was power and the need to control to maintain that power. I see organised religions (being separate from the belief in a god) as having often been used as the tool for control.

[vidcc]

I think the death sentence is fine, I mean hell the world is overpopulated. Whoever voted against the death sentence is a damn liberal democrat. No offense and no name calling, but you know you are. The democrats have taken over the house only because they pull crap out of there ass and make false promises. Dont let them take the presidancy!!

http://www.4wd.com/4wdforums/images/smilies/crybaby_sign.gif

[Busyman™]

I think the death sentence is fine, I mean hell the world is overpopulated. Whoever voted against the death sentence is a damn liberal democrat. No offense and no name calling, but you know you are. The democrats have taken over the house only because they pull crap out of there ass and make false promises. Dont let them take the presidancy!!

:glag:

Yes lets keep going in the direction we have been going.:crazy:

[Ava Estelle]

I think the death sentence is fine, I mean hell the world is overpopulated. Whoever voted against the death sentence is a damn liberal democrat.

What a load of bollox, typical right wing republican bullshit!

In 2001 Illinois suspended the death penalty after the number of death row inmates released after DNA evidence proved their innocence, was larger than the number executed.

"We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death," Illinois Gov. George Ryan.

This has been repeated all over the US.

[j2k4]

I think the death sentence is fine, I mean hell the world is overpopulated. Whoever voted against the death sentence is a damn liberal democrat.

What a load of bollox, typical right wing republican bullshit!

In 2001 Illinois suspended the death penalty after the number of death row inmates released after DNA evidence proved their innocence, was larger than the number executed.

"We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death," Illinois Gov. George Ryan.

This has been repeated all over the US.

Hmmm.

First of all, the fact 18 (not 13) people have been exonerated since 1987 (before DNA was a viable tool for determining guilt or innocence) proves only that the system works...innocent people were not executed.

12 people have been executed since 1976, and nary a question of the propriety of their executions (vis a vis their guilt) has been raised.

Saying "All over the US" is taking just a wee bit of a rhetorical liberty, given the death penalty isn't applied universally.

You should also note Ryan left office in January of '03, commuting all pending death sentences as he did.

He was replaced by Rod Blagojevich.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Hmmm.

First of all, the fact 18 (not 13) people have been exonerated since 1987 (before DNA was a viable tool for determining guilt or innocence) proves only that the system works...innocent people were not executed.



That should really be " ...some innocent people were not executed".

Unless your contention is that innocent people are never murdered by the state. Which I think would be a bold statement indeed.

[import_fighter]

yes for the right crime.

[j2k4]

Hmmm.

First of all, the fact 18 (not 13) people have been exonerated since 1987 (before DNA was a viable tool for determining guilt or innocence) proves only that the system works...innocent people were not executed.



That should really be " ...some innocent people were not executed".

Unless your contention is that innocent people are never murdered by the state. Which I think would be a bold statement indeed.

Which I take to mean you think the state is willy-nilly taking innocent lives.

How often do you think this happens, try to answer without trotting out that useless old saw that goes "even once is once too many".

What if we discovered that a murderer was wrongly released, only to subsequently commit a double-homocide?

We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again, which example can surely be demonstrated more often than an innocent being executed...

[Ava Estelle]

Here we go, good old j2-kill 'em all and let god sort them out-k4!

The figure for the whole of the US is well over 100 released, and this is only since DNA evidence was available. Seeing as the US, over the years, has executed 1,000's, it doesn't take too much intelligence to see that many would have been innocent. At least with life imprisonment they would have had a chance of release.


double-homocide
I didn't realise there were specific laws in the US against the killing of homosexuals. :)

[j2k4]

double-homocide
I didn't realise there were specific laws in the US against the killing of homosexuals. :)

Look in your Foreigners Guide to Mis-begotten Mis-perceptions about the United States under the heading of "Hate Crimes", doofus.


Apologies for the mis-spelling.

I'm sure you can count them on one hand, by now.

[Chip Monk]

That should really be " ...some innocent people were not executed".

Unless your contention is that innocent people are never murdered by the state. Which I think would be a bold statement indeed.

Which I take to mean you think the state is willy-nilly taking innocent lives.

How often do you think this happens, try to answer without trotting out that useless old saw that goes "even once is once too many".

What if we discovered that a murderer was wrongly released, only to subsequently commit a double-homocide?

We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again, which example can surely be demonstrated more often than an innocent being executed...

First, let's make this absolutely clear, if I want to answer ""even once is once too many"." then that is what I'll do, if for no other reason because it's true. Or do you have an actual figure for acceptable casualties.

Secondly, murderers do get released and murder again and innocent people are killed by the State. Both happen, however we are in a position to stop one of them overnight, by the State simply stopping killing people.

"We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again"

So would I, but that's not what we're talking about, now is it.

[j2k4]

Which I take to mean you think the state is willy-nilly taking innocent lives.

How often do you think this happens, try to answer without trotting out that useless old saw that goes "even once is once too many".

What if we discovered that a murderer was wrongly released, only to subsequently commit a double-homocide?

We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again, which example can surely be demonstrated more often than an innocent being executed...

First, let's make this absolutely clear, if I want to answer ""even once is once too many"." then that is what I'll do, if for no other reason because it's true. Or do you have an actual figure for acceptable casualties.

Secondly, murderers do get released and murder again and innocent people are killed by the State. Both happen, however we are in a position to stop one of them overnight, by the State simply stopping killing people.

"We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again"

So would I, but that's not what we're talking about, now is it.

It is what I was talking about.

As with so many other things, we've been through all of this before.

I really don't have a thing against capital punishment, except that it should be cheaper; perhaps as an energy-saving measure, we could forego the cost of the electricity it takes to fry them, as well as the cost of the fossil-fuel required to make the electricity, and do away with them by giving the biggest, baddest S.O.B. on death row an axe to do the job, and give the smallest, weakest one a mop to clean up afterward. :)

If someone can manage to keep murderers in for life (that is to say, until they die), with no exceptions, I'd go for that, too.

Add a caveat stating a positive DNA test/match marks the absolute end of the appeals process while they're at it.

[Mr JP Fugley]

It is what I was talking about.

Since when, that post was totally out of the blue and changed the argument. The fact that you tried to do it in a surreptitious way was, at best, disingenuous.

If someone can manage to keep murderers in for life (that is to say, until they die), with no exceptions, I'd go for that, too.

I have no problem with life meaning life.

Add a caveat stating a positive DNA test/match marks the absolute end of the appeals process while they're at it.

Could do, coz forensic tests are never wrong.



I really hate posting that way.

[j2k4]

Since when, that post was totally out of the blue and changed the argument. The fact that you tried to do it in a surreptitious way was, at best, disingenuous.

Pardon, what was the (mis-spelled) title of this thread again? :huh:

[j2k4]

BTW-

The numbers recorded in the poll are roughly even.

There are more of us neanderthals than you imagined, huh?

I could prevail upon Clocker to make it at least one vote closer, too. :)

[Gripper]

As a for instance,do we believe the Canadian pig farmer deserves to live if convicted for his crimes?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/robert_pickton/robert_pickton_jump_page.html

[j2k4]

As a for instance,do we believe the Canadian pig farmer deserves to live if convicted for his crimes?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/robert_pickton/robert_pickton_jump_page.html

Good question.

Let's hear an agnostic or an atheist create a cohesive moral argument against killing the pig farmer, assuming, of course, that he's failed the DNA standard. :dabs:

Why are we better people for keeping him alive?

[vidcc]

As a for instance,do we believe the Canadian pig farmer deserves to live if convicted for his crimes?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/robert_pickton/robert_pickton_jump_page.html

Good question.

Let's hear an agnostic or an atheist create a cohesive moral argument against killing the pig farmer, assuming, of course, that he's failed the DNA standard. :dabs:

Why are we better people for keeping him alive?

Why are you singling out atheists and agnostics to make a moral argument against the death penalty? What conflicts (moral or doctrine) could they possibly have?

They either think it's wrong or they don't. They do this from their own thought process and not "because the book says so" or "the religion says so".
Obviously it's possible for people of faith to make up their own mind, but I guess their faith plays a big part of that decision.
I have more respect for the viewpoint of the christians that view the death penalty as wrong than the christians who agree with me and support the death penalty (in principle).

[Mr JP Fugley]

Since when, that post was totally out of the blue and changed the argument. The fact that you tried to do it in a surreptitious way was, at best, disingenuous.

Pardon, what was the (mis-spelled) title of this thread again? :huh:

"The Death Sentance"

Not

"someone wrongly detained for several years "

You moved the goalposts, not me.

[manker]

Good question.

Let's hear an agnostic or an atheist create a cohesive moral argument against killing the pig farmer, assuming, of course, that he's failed the DNA standard. :dabs:

Why are we better people for keeping him alive?

Why are you singling out atheists and agnostics to make a moral argument against the death penalty? I think, fairly obviously, he'd had enough of JP running verbal rings around him.

That's about as subtle as I've ever seen j2 be.

===

It's quite simple why I wouldn't want the pig farmer put to death, no matter what his crime. We have the means to lock this individual away from society for the rest of his days without comforts or freedoms. We can permanently put him in a place where he can do no more harm to another living soul.

That, to me, is far more preferable than taking away another life.

I don't believe that just because someone else has so little regard for human life that they take it away with no mark on their conscience, I should do the same in the name of retribution. That would bring me down, not all the way, but some way toward their level.

There are, of course, easily dismissed arguments concerning financial matters regarding the cost of keeping a prisoner incarcerated for the rest of his days but even if someone did manage to put forward an argument that I thought held at least some water in a financial respect - which I've never actually seen anyone do - I'd still favour the life without parole option over the death penalty.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Here's my moral argument against the death penalty - Killing people is wrong.

Here's my Christian argument against the death penalty - Thou shalt not kill.

Here's my moral argument for the death penalty - Kill the bastard, he deserves it.

Here's my practical argument for the death penalty - Kill the bastard, it's cheaper.



That, gentle viewer, is the argument, sans bollocks and spin.



(Obviously I did spin it a bit, but hey, whatcha gonna do.)

[j2k4]

Here's my moral argument against the death penalty - Killing people is wrong.

Here's my Christian argument against the death penalty - Thou shalt not kill.

Here's my moral argument for the death penalty - Kill the bastard, he deserves it.

Here's my practical argument for the death penalty - Kill the bastard, it's cheaper.



That, gentle viewer, is the argument, sans bollocks and spin.


(Obviously I did spin it a bit, but hey, whatcha gonna do.)

Bollocks is in the eye of the beholder, I'd say.

As I've also said, we've done this before, and in much the same way...those who are against the death penalty are just as selective in their reasonings as those they deride as "unenlightened".

That presumptive air of authority is really just your upturned nose blocking your view of reality.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Here's my moral argument against the death penalty - Killing people is wrong.

Here's my Christian argument against the death penalty - Thou shalt not kill.

Here's my moral argument for the death penalty - Kill the bastard, he deserves it.

Here's my practical argument for the death penalty - Kill the bastard, it's cheaper.



That, gentle viewer, is the argument, sans bollocks and spin.


(Obviously I did spin it a bit, but hey, whatcha gonna do.)

Bollocks is in the eye of the beholder, I'd say.

As I've also said, we've done this before, and in much the same way...those who are against the death penalty are just as selective in their reasonings as those they deride as "unenlightened".

That presumptive air of authority is really just your upturned nose blocking your view of reality.


There's nothing selective involved, as can be seen by my reasoning, which you quoted. Neither is there any air of authority. I have my opinion, I have my reasons for holding it and have clearly stated both.

I also cannot even begin to understand how any Christian can support the death penalty. The two must be mutually exclusive.

[Ava Estelle]

...those who are against the death penalty are just as selective in their reasonings as those they deride as "unenlightened"

But not those who support the death penalty, I presume?

[vidcc]

Here's my moral argument against the death penalty - Killing people is wrong. I agree but change it to killing innocent people is wrong. As I said before I don't believe in the afterlife, that and as there is no god there is no judgment being made upon the murderer by him.
So given that (from my stance) if you take the one life the innocent person has then you don't deserve your one life.



Here's my Christian argument against the death penalty - Thou shalt not kill.

Which is why I respect that view on consistency, Jesus stopped an execution saying "let he who is without sin....." I just don't see how Christianity and the death penalty go together.
It's possible to go with the eye for an eye part if you are not Christian, but IMO Jesus was rebelling against the old testament slightly :unsure:

[jokzor]

it doesn't matter how big a pile of junk you can be, you can always change, and people do change when they have the chance to do it

[Mr JP Fugley]

I agree but change it to killing innocent people is wrong. As I said before I don't believe in the afterlife, that and as there is no god there is no judgment being made upon the murderer by him.
So given that (from my stance) if you take the one life the innocent person has then you don't deserve your one life.



Here's my Christian argument against the death penalty - Thou shalt not kill.

Which is why I respect that view on consistency, Jesus stopped an execution saying "let he who is without sin....." I just don't see how Christianity and the death penalty go together.
It's possible to go with the eye for an eye part if you are not Christian, but IMO Jesus was rebelling against the old testament slightly :unsure:

Re the Old Testament thing. Christians (at least Catholics) believe that He came from God to not only fulfill scripture but also to bring a new covenant from God. A new deal as it were, to replace the one we had broken earlier.

With regard to Scripture, the ten commandments (old) say Thou shalt not kill. The teachings of Jesus (new) are forgiveness and not taking lives, as you point out. So I agree, the death penalty is not consistant with Christian beliefs.

The "eye for an eye thing" is very much Old Testament and again not consistant with Christ's teachings that we should "turn the other cheek".

I have to say I find the concept of Christians who base their beliefs primarilly on the Old Testament to be a strange one. Why not base Christianity on what Christ taught. That seems like the way to me.

[j2k4]

Why not base Christianity on what Christ taught. That seems like the way to me.

I agree wholeheartedly; however, as a human I am less-than perfect, and harbor vengeful thoughts. :)

I couldn't bear to enter the afterlife with a totally clean slate, you see.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Why not base Christianity on what Christ taught. That seems like the way to me.

I agree wholeheartedly; however, as a human I am less-than perfect, and harbor vengeful thoughts. :)

I couldn't bear to enter the afterlife with a totally clean slate, you see.

That's cool, pas de problem. Believe what you believe and follow whatever system of morality you empathise with.

However please don't claim to be a Christian when your beliefs are fundamentally at odds with those of the person you profess to follow.

Christianity is not a fashion statement.

[j2k4]

I agree wholeheartedly; however, as a human I am less-than perfect, and harbor vengeful thoughts. :)

I couldn't bear to enter the afterlife with a totally clean slate, you see.

That's cool, pas de problem. Believe what you believe and follow whatever system of morality you empathise with.

However please don't claim to be a Christian when your beliefs are fundamentally at odds with those of the person you profess to follow.

Christianity is not a fashion statement.

Well, then.

Shall we see where that takes us. :dry:

[Mr JP Fugley]

It doesn't take us anywhere new.

Christ is quite clear on the concept of killing other people. It's really not open to debate. At least not from what I have read or been taught.

If you feel that you may be able to quote Him saying something, or teaching something, which supports capital punishment I would be more than happy to read it.

Seriously.