why not death penalty?

[vidcc]

Accused serial bomber Eric Robert Rudolph will avoid a possible death sentence by pleading guilty to a string of attacks in Alabama and Georgia, including a deadly blast during the 1996 Olympics, and several on abortion clinics.


I am for the death penalty when there is no doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt won't cut it, but this case seems to be playing politics because of the places he bombed.

It has been suggested by many prosecutors that if he went to trial a death sentence would be hard to get because of sympathetic "cultural views" of potential jurors because he bombed abortion clinics.

Seeing as this was pre-meditated I fail to see any justification for a plea bargain. This is domestic terrorism.

Thoughts

[Arm]

There should be certain cases where there is a mandatory death penalty sentence. No plea bargain, and appeal cannt reverse your sentence if you are truly guilty.

[JPaul]

No death penalty.

The State taking a life means that I am doing it. I don't want to do it. I do not believe in "an eye for an eye" mentality.

Lock up, with no hope of parole, fine. Death penalty, no.

[RPerry]

No death penalty.

The State taking a life means that I am doing it. I don't want to do it. I do not believe in "an eye for an eye" mentality.

Lock up, with no hope of parole, fine. Death penalty, no.

And I suppose you don't mind paying for these worthless bastards who didn't care about the people they killed ?

[JPaul]

And I suppose you don't mind paying for these worthless bastards who didn't care about the people they killed ?
No, I don't. That's what it takes, I don't think the cost is a factor when we are discussing whether the State should take lives on my behalf.

I do object to paying for workshy bastards with the attitude "why should I get a job, I get as much in benefits". But that's another discussion.

[Snee]

I don't agree with the death penalty unless I know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the person in question is guilty of a heinous crime.

And as I've said before, it would require some pretty massive evidence, and pretty much me seeing the crime firsthand for me to agree with any death sentence. This because I think that there are far too many instances where innocent people have been executed.

However, if others get executed for less, when this bloke doesn't, then that's a severe breach of protocol by the court. Politics shouldn't be allowed to interfere with justice on this level.

Next time it might as well be someone who dies because of the same people, if they are allowed that kind of power.

[vidcc]

J2-

Why do you think in this case life is the way to go? Please be honest if it has anything to do with the fact that it was abortion clinics he bombed.
I do appreciate you are in no way for him going unpunished, just wonder why no death.


@ all

I appreciate the anti death sentence moral view. I myself have some reservations about it but they do tend to be about the current system being too open to mistakes. I don't view it as a deterrent at all. It is punishment.
That said the thread is about the direct question I asked J2, which leads to me wondering if there is a view that it's "almost" ok to kill if it's "for the right cause"...this cause being the wish to ban abortions.

[manker]

@ all

I appreciate the anti death sentence moral view. I myself have some reservations about it but they do tend to be about the current system being too open to mistakes. I don't view it as a deterrent at all. It is punishment.
That said the thread is about the direct question I asked J2, which leads to me wondering if there is a view that it's "almost" ok to kill if it's "for the right cause"...this cause being the wish to ban abortions.For the right cause if that cause is self preservation or looking after your family but certainly not for any political reasons.

Btw, I do not agree with the death penalty in any circumstance, sure there is the moral stance which I consider just but further to that a more punitive approach would be to lock-up the offender, for example a serial murderer or pedophile, without hope of parole nor enhanced status - or even visitors.

[JPaul]

My argument is not that we get it wrong sometimes, tho' that in itself would be enough.

My argument is that it is wrong to take a human life, save when you are in mortal danger yourself and are defending your own life, or that of other innocents.

A prisoner in maximum security is no threat and therefore there is no need to kill them.

As to the cost, make them work for their keep. Give them a roof over their head and a survival diet, but make them work for everything else. Pay them in credits which they can use to buy better food or clothes or toothpaste or juice, instead of water or whatever. Do not allow cigarettes, why should we, they are there to protect society and to be punished for their actions.

Profits made go to the State to help pay for them.

[vidcc]

I have no problem with life without parole as a punishment but it's the possible double standard because of the abortion clinics being his target. I suspect if he had blown up a library or a government building he wouldn't be considered for a plea bargain.

we have debated the moral issue of the death penalty often on this board so please could we steer clear of that as an issue on itself.

[vidcc]

For the right cause if that cause is self preservation or looking after your family but certainly not for any political reasons.


I don't believe his crimes had anything to do with self preservation. these were not self defense crimes.

[manker]

I don't believe his crimes had anything to do with self preservation. these were not self defense crimes.Well, yeah. From what I wrote I assumed the reader would extrapolate that I believed it was not okay to kill for anything other than preserving one's own life or that of a loved one.

:blink:

[JPaul]

Well, yeah. From what I wrote I assumed the reader would extrapolate that I believed it was not okay to kill for anything other than preserving one's own life or that of a loved one.

:blink:
That's what I thought you meant. However as it's what I also think it's hardly surprising that I took it to be your meaning.

To me there are no double standards possible, Death Penalty = No. There is no other tenable position, unless one accepts that it is done as revenge. Which is really a rather unsavoury way for a "civilized" society to behave.

For any Christians here, it's "Thou shalt not kill", there's no unless at the end.

[bigboab]

Most of my life I have been an advocate for capital punishment. Now I have changed my mind. It is not a deterrent; otherwise they would not be carrying it out. It is a preventative measure, only in the sense that it prevents the guilty person from recommitting the offence. I recently saw a paedophile being executed in Iran, richly deserved. At the same time I said this type of punishment is not working or this person would not have committed the horrible crimes he was guilty of.

As the capital punishment act stood in the UK before it was abolished, and as it stands in most countries that still have capital punishment, the following were a rough guide to Capital offences.

Killing a Police Officer, Prison Officer in pursuit of their duties. Killing in the furtherance of theft. Premeditated killing and a few other ones I cannot remember.

Absent from the above list, were child killers and persons who were mentally unstable at the time of the crime (or later). In my opinion these are exactly the people who should have received capital punishment. How many instances have you read of people getting released or escaping from mental institutes and killing again? Far too many in my opinion.



I think, in this specific case, that he should be sentenced to life, strapped over a barrel, so that any of his colleagues so inclined might give him a nice "poke" as they pass.

J2! Is there something that you would like to talk about? We are here to help. :)

[manker]

That's what I thought you meant. However as it's what I also think it's hardly surprising that I took it to be your meaning.

To me there are no double standards possible, Death Penalty = No. There is no other tenable position, unless one accepts that it is done as revenge. Which is really a rather unsavoury way for a "civilized" society to behave.

For any Christians here, it's "Thou shalt not kill", there's no unless at the end.Well, I am not a Christian, I just happen to think that the killing of people, organised by the state or otherwise, is wrong.

I'm not aware of the statistics but I think that the cost of keeping an incarcerated man alive until the end of his days while making him work for the benefit of the society he wronged, as you outlined, wouldn't greatly outweigh the huge legal costs involved in the many appeals that the condemned man would have orchestrated.

But that's just logistics. It's the human aspect I'm more concerned with.

[hobbes]

That's what I thought you meant. However as it's what I also think it's hardly surprising that I took it to be your meaning.

To me there are no double standards possible, Death Penalty = No. There is no other tenable position, unless one accepts that it is done as revenge. Which is really a rather unsavoury way for a "civilized" society to behave.

For any Christians here, it's "Thou shalt not kill", there's no unless at the end.

From a Christian standpoint does the Church make a distinction between killing and self defense?

Certainly we humans believe that we have the right to defend ourselves, even if it means the death of another, but does the Church make such a distinction.

If someone were about to kill my child, I can't see myself turning the other cheek as Christ says.

When God said, "Thou shall not kill", I did not see an asterik at the end which allowed for certain exceptions. God let his Son be killed without interference.

So when God puts us in a situation in which we must stand by and let a love one die, is that not a test of faith. God told you not to kill, God knew this situation would arise. Certainly God has a reason for this event.

If killing is your only option, to save the life of a loved one, or even yourself, is there something in the scripture which allows for this exception?

[vidcc]

NM :frusty:

[manker]

NM :frusty:Spam :glare:

[hobbes]

For Vidcc:

The death penalty does not serve as deterrent and can be used politically to silence people, permanently. It is exploitable.

Lock 'em up, throw away the key and make them earn their daily bread.



For Me:

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him...." (Ex. 22:2-3)

This passage is interpreted to mean that if someone enters your house and you cannot assess his relative danger to you and your family, you are able to kill that person without punishmnet.

If, however, it can be clearly seen that this person has no weapon and is after material belongings, then to kill him is murder.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items below are lounge level material
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Bible is proof that God is a lawyer. It clearly states something, but in the fine print elsewhere in a large document there is a single line which modifies that assertion. Should have been an asterisk on the Ten Commandments.

Wouldn't that have freaked Moses out.

"Lord, WTF is an asterisk?"
"Just put it, Moses."
"But Lord, I don't understand"
" Look, to be quite frank, I work in mysterious ways. Some other person, far removed from you in time and space will be making a comment relevant to this line and I want people to refer to that passage in the Bible."
"Lord, you are freaking me out, what is a Bible"

[manker]

For Me:

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him...." (Ex. 22:2-3)

This passage is interpreted to mean that if someone enters your house and you cannot assess his relative danger to you and your family, you are able to kill that person without punishmnet.

If, however, it can be clearly seen that this person has no weapon and is after material belongings, then to kill him is murder.That seems reasonable. Thanks, hobbes.

I see no cause to kill a man for the sake of a plasma TV and a game cube.

[vidcc]

For Vidcc:

The death penalty does not serve as deterrent and can be used politically to silence people, permanently. It is exploitable.

Lock 'em up, throw away the key and make them earn their daily bread.






I don't view it as a deterrent at all. It is punishment.

To me it's not to silence him in this instance but more a case of telling him he did wrong and must be punished while winking at him.
"you bad bad boy ;) " :dry:


@all
The point to this thread is the double standard because of places the crimewas aimed at. A plea bargain would not be considered for someone like timothy mcveigh so why for this man?
The people that the proscecution are saying would make it hard to gain the death penalty because they are anti abortion so would be sympathetic are the same people more or less that are pro death penalty and would give no second thought to condeming the likes of mcviegh, scott peterson or any other murderer/ terrorist to death.
But for the sake of the point of the thread lets say that we don't have the death penalty and he is being offered 30 years instead of life without parole.

[sparsely]

jPaul summed up my feelings about it in his first post.
I'd like to keep blood off my hands, thanks.

[hobbes]

My apologies Vidcc, I was not reading closely.

Human psychology plays a large in role in our court system. As I mentioned in another thread, many doctors, who have done absolutely nothing wrong are successfully sued, with settlements being made out-of-court simply because the insurance companies fear that a jury will act on emotion and not culpability.

I sat on a jury once and I realized it was the job of the lawyers to emotionally manipulate and confuse the jury. One of the women pulled me aside and expressed her disappointment in being selected. "Damn, I thought I would be sent home. I want to watch Jerry Springer".

You deal with this level of mentality in your jurors, I think the lawyers were just trying to make sure they got something and were will to sacrifice the whole enchilada.

I think human psycholgy drove their decision about what to pursue.

[Busyman]

I advocate torture or exile over the death penalty.

With torture, it might serve as a deterrent.

Either hard torture or make the person a slave.
That way he isn't being killed (no murder).

Exile is another option. See the movie "No Escape".

[JPaul]

I advocate torture or exile over the death penalty.

With torture, it might serve as a deterrent.

Either hard torture or make the person a slave.
That way he isn't being killed (no murder).

Exile is another option. See the movie "No Escape".
How many times do you feel you have to demonstrate that you are a twat.

I think most people already know it.

[sparsely]

How many times do you feel you have to demonstrate that you are a twat.

I think most people already know it.

sparsely raises his hand

[JPaul]

sparsely raises his hand
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[MCHeshPants420]

Exile is another option. See the movie "No Escape".

I disagree with everything else you said in your post but that film (No Escape) was an entertaining film. Based on a book by the way, and (you guessed it) the book was far superior.

This irrelevant post was brought to you by the Whatever Happened To Ray Liotta Foundation.

[Busyman]

How many times do you feel you have to demonstrate that you are a twat.

I think most people already know it.
You have no real solutions, just ideals that mean shit in the real world.
Anything relating to being a pussy falls in your court.

I'll advocate torture over the death penalty.

Now I'd be more stringent as to how that decision comes about.

[fkdup74]

The point to this thread is the double standard because of places the crime was aimed at. A plea bargain would not be considered for someone like timothy mcveigh so why for this man?

quite simply, there should be no plea bargain, IMO
if a state is going to employ the death penalty, then stick with it
i.e....if they fry one serial bomber, fry em all
regardless of the political, religious, or whatever, nature of the murder(s), bombing(s), etc
otherwise do away with the penalty all together

oh, and to the people who dont seem to think the death penalty is a deterent...
well....you're half right, but not for the reasons you may believe
it fails simply because it is rarely carried out
even if a prisoner is actually executed, it can take upwards of 20-30 years or so
most probably die of natural causes before they ever are executed,
or appeal until the penalty is lifted by some bleeding heart liberal :P

I am guessing if they sent em to the chair/chamber/etc,
say, within a few days of passing sentence.....
they may think twice about lighting the fuse on that bomb
perhaps not, but it would be interesting to see what the results would be
if they actually carried out a few more executions

-edit-
they could always hire me for the experiment :devil:
"what? you bombed a school and killed 37 kids?" ZAP!
"huh? you knifed to death, then dumped your wife into the canal because you caught her cheating?" ZAP!
"WTF? you beat your 3 month old child to death because he/she was crying too loud?" ZAP! ZAP! ZZZZZZZZZZZZAP!

and I could pull the lever all day w/o conscience
I could even sit in the courtroom, with an executioner's hood on,
so the fkrs know if they get sentenced...

[Busyman]

quite simply, there should be no plea bargain, IMO
if a state is going to employ the death penalty, then stick with it
i.e....if they fry one serial bomber, fry em all
regardless of the political, religious, or whatever, nature of the murder(s), bombing(s), etc
otherwise do away with the penalty all together

oh, and to the people who dont seem to think the death penalty is a deterent...
well....you're half right, but not for the reasons you may believe
it fails simply because it is rarely carried out
even if a prisoner is actually executed, it can take upwards of 20-30 years or so
most probably die of natural causes before they ever are executed,
or appeal until the penalty is lifted by some bleeding heart liberal :P

I am guessing if they sent em to the chair/chamber/etc,
say, within a few days of passing sentence.....
they may think twice about lighting the fuse on that bomb
perhaps not, but it would be interesting to see what the results would be
if they actually carried out a few more executions

-edit-
they could always hire me for the experiment :devil:
"what? you bombed a school and killed 37 kids?" ZAP!
"huh? you knifed to death, then dumped your wife into the canal because you caught her cheating?" ZAP!
"WTF? you beat your 3 month old child to death because he/she was crying too loud?" ZAP! ZAP! ZZZZZZZZZZZZAP!

and I could pull the lever all day w/o conscience
I could even sit in the courtroom, with an executioner's hood on,
so the fkrs know if they get sentenced...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

To those the death penalty isn't a deterrent I say it depends on the type of criminal.

There are some that don't mind prison for the rest of their life and some that aren't afraid to die (as FKDUP said, it really does take forever).

Prisoners are coddled too much.

For many, having been in prison is a badge of honor.
Why should prisonerS have 3 meals a day while a mother struggles to feed herself and 2 kids.

Drop the prisoner on an island and leave with a conscience. ;)

[JPaul]

Let's look at the real world.

Do countries with a death penalty have significantly lower levels of murder (or any crime which would have the potential for a death penalty) than those which do not.

Even if they do, which I doubt, does that mean that the death penalty is a good thing. Is it a good enough deterrent to justify the taking of another life.

I don't think so, but again I live in a country where the death penalty is extinct. It was fully abolished in 1999 when the last few crimes for which it was available were removed.

[Busyman]

Let's look at the real world.

Do countries with a death penalty have significantly lower levels of murder (or any crime which would have the potential for a death penalty) than those which do not.

Even if they do, which I doubt, does that mean that the death penalty is a good thing. Is it a good enough deterrent to justify the taking of another life.

I don't think so, but again I live in a country where the death penalty is extinct. It was fully abolished in 1999 when the last few crimes for which it was available were removed.
Well as FKDUP said, our death penalty means you may at the end of 20-30 years. Not a deterrent when compared to someone chopping one's head off. :sick:

[JPaul]

So if it's not a deterrent, why have it.

It serves no purpose.

[manker]

So if it's not a deterrent, why have it.

It serves no purpose.Ah, but it does. It serves political purposes.

As mentioned it permanently silences troublesome folk but further than that, what a dramatic statement it is when an electioneer says that he's so tough on crime, he's prepared to kill. It is in our nature to want revenge when we are wronged and when this instinct is qualified by a politician advocating it, the notion seems somehow more palatable - to some. People like FCKDUP will see killing people as just and make statements containing the words 'fry' and 'zap' like it's a Batman review.

Clearly it makes more sense, morally and probably financially, to abolish the death penalty but while it serves a political purpose - ie while the public swallows the rhetoric spewed forth by the politicians - it will continue to exist in certain areas.

[bigboab]

If the death penalty was a deterrent then it would never need to be implemented. :unsure:

[JPaul]

Ah, but it does. It serves political purposes.

As mentioned it permanently silences troublesome folk but further than that, what a dramatic statement it is when an electioneer says that he's so tough on crime, he's prepared to kill. It is in our nature to want revenge when we are wronged and when this instinct is qualified by a politician advocating it, the notion seems somehow more palatable - to some. People like FCKDUP will see killing people as just and make statements containing the words 'fry' and 'zap' like it's a Batman review.

Clearly it makes more sense, morally and probably financially, to abolish the death penalty but while it serves a political purpose - ie while the public swallows the rhetoric spewed forth by the politicians - it will continue to exist in certain areas.

Ah, the heady mix of politics and revenge.

What sort of way is that to run a country.

I can't see how a thinking electorate would vote someone into power based on that as a platform

[Busyman]

So if it's not a deterrent, why have it.

It serves no purpose.
How do you know it's not a deterrent? :huh:

Is the wrath of God a deterrent?

[JPaul]

How do you know it's not a deterrent? :huh:

Is the wrath of God a deterrent?
Sorry, I was replying to what you said (in the post prior to mine, where you seemed to agree with FKDUP), allied to my own belief that your level of crime for which it was a penalty was no lower than our's.

What makes you think it is a deterrent. I see nothing to support this.

[clocker]

Ah, the heady mix of politics and revenge.

What sort of way is that to run a country.

I can't see how a thinking electorate would vote someone into power based on that as a platform
Actually, for most of human history, that "platform" has been exactly what people were in favor of.
Christians of all stripes bought into it just as avidly as everyone else.

Personally, I favor capital punishment.
Not as a deterrent, I think that argument is irrelevant.
Some crimes are simply so heinous and the perpetrators so unrepentant that getting "voted off the island" is the only sane response.

[bigboab]

How do you know it's not a deterrent? :huh:

Is the wrath of God a deterrent?

As far as I am aware, the Wrath Of God does not, hook you up to several thousand volts, give you a lethal injection or hang you by the neck till you are dead.

[JPaul]

Actually, for most of human history, that "platform" has been exactly what people were in favor of.
Christians of all stripes bought into it just as avidly as everyone else.


Indeed, so why change now, it's worked for thousands of years.

I accept that you want revenge for certain crimes. However I cannot accept that it is the only "sane response". To think that violence should be remedied with violence is not the only way.

[Busyman]

Sorry, I was replying to what you said (in the post prior to mine, where you seemed to agree with FKDUP), allied to my own belief that your level of crime for which it was a penalty was no lower than our's.

What makes you think it is a deterrent. I see nothing to support this.
Hmm I asked you how do you know it's not a deterrent?

I then asked is the wrath of God a deterrent?

[fkdup74]

People like FCKDUP will see killing people as just and make statements containing the words 'fry' and 'zap' like it's a Batman review.

meh, you attempt to take an intellectual POV in a debate,
then go and do something totally ignorant...you generalize :frusty:
people are too complex to put into a category,
because of the use of a couple of "comic book" exclamations
besides, I never liked Batman, or any DC comics for that matter :P
Marvel pwns :01: Image pwns :01: DC bites :lol:

oh i forgot to mention, while sitting in the courtroom....
I could pull the hood back occasionally....and smile a death's head grin....
so the bastard can at least see the face of the reaper :devil:
yeah, so...maybe I am a bit twisted, but....
what of the guy that REPEATEDLY bludgeons an infant,
because he doesnt want to hear the crying?
you fucking liberals...THINK OF THE VICTIMS FFS!
you lot really do disgust me, wanting to let some demented piece of shit like that live :dry:
"oh...it's wrong to take a life...wah wah wah!"
how about the 3 month old child that will never.....
grow up to maybe become a doctor of great significance?
or, now this should hit home for some of you, the next great civil rights activist?
or maybe just be a kid and play little league baseball and eat too much candy?
what of the woman who just orphanized three kids....
because some fucking freak broke in to her house, sodomized her and cut her throat?
the world is not some fucking perfect Mary Poppins fairy tale FFS :angry:
but some of you want to spin it that way,
with your "killing is wrong, gun owner ship is wrong, wahwahwah etc etc etc"
so you would have the innocent stand defenseless to any and all evils?
maybe we should strap some of YOU into a chair and hit the switch ;)

[JPaul]

If you think that the answer to violence is more violence that's fine, it's a matter for you.

However you lower your level to that of the killer, when you kill him / her. You become no better than them when you fry or zap them.

A civilized society should be able to behave better than it's worst members. Particularly when there are alternatives.

The death penalty is nothing more than public revenge. People look at other parts of the world and are shocked at floggings, take a look at what you yourselves legally do, you kill people who are no longer a danger to anyone.

Oh, am I supposed to say wahwahwah now.

[fkdup74]

If you think that the answer to violence is more violence that's fine, it's a matter for you.

However you lower your level to that of the killer, when you kill him / her. You become no better than them when you fry or zap them.

A civilized society should be able to behave better than it's worst members. Particularly when there are alternatives.

The death penalty is nothing more than public revenge. People look at other parts of the world and are shocked at floggings, take a look at what you yourselves legally do, you kill people who are no longer a danger to anyone.

Oh, am I supposed to say wahwahwah now.

you liberals really take the cake you know?
but, since that is the way you want it.....
how about this:
if you people are so opposed to the death penalty,
YOU carry the financial burden of housing & feeding those inmates
take a vote, if the voter is opposed, he/she is taxed
if the voter is in favor of the death penalty, he/she should be exempted from said tax
how much will you pay for a "clean conscience"? ;)
keep in mind, that's food, housing, clothing, medication, hot water, cable tv,
electricity, public defenders, transportation, the list goes on and on
(yes, they get cable tv now I am told)
Busy said it best....prisoners are coddled too much these days

[vidcc]

I agree with this



quite simply, there should be no plea bargain, IMO
if a state is going to employ the death penalty, then stick with it
i.e....if they fry one serial bomber, fry em all
regardless of the political, religious, or whatever, nature of the murder(s), bombing(s), etc
otherwise do away with the penalty all together


I'm afraid the the way you put the rest of your argument seems more of a lynch mob rant than calm debate.
@all
I am for the death penalty as I already stated, but it is not a deterrent, it is punishment. I am not for flippant use of it but some people commit crimes so bad they deserve to die..it's that simple for me. However if we suddenly decided to do away with it and make the toughest punishment life in prison with no chance of parole I wouldn't be upset in the least.

I agree that ideally any civilised society would abhor the death penalty and I believe that we do feel uncomfortable about it which is why apart from witnesses they are carried out in private and not public.
Also we now use lethal injection mostly which puts the condemned to sleep before the lethal drugs are administered so the only "suffering" is knowing that death is here.

[manker]

you liberals really take the cake you know?
but, since that is the way you want it.....
how about this:
if you people are so opposed to the death penalty,
YOU carry the financial burden of housing & feeding those inmates
take a vote, if the voter is opposed, he/she is taxed
if the voter is in favor of the death penalty, he/she should be exempted from said tax
how much will you pay for a "clean conscience"? ;)
keep in mind, that's food, housing, clothing, medication, hot water, cable tv,
electricity, public defenders, transportation, the list goes on and on
(yes, they get cable tv now I am told)
Busy said it best....prisoners are coddled too much these daysYes mate, and the way to acheive this paying for the upkeep of convicted criminals is by voting for a likeminded political candidate, which I do at every opportunity. So clearly I'm already willing to pay for it, as is every other 'wailing liberal' that is opposed to the death penalty.

Fairly obvious I'd have thought.


As to the other comments about taking an intellectual standpoint and then generalising. Well, it was only while referring to you ... if you're going to post like a comic book character then I might just respond in kind, mr zap happy.

[vidcc]

if you people are so opposed to the death penalty,
YOU carry the financial burden of housing & feeding those inmates


Depending on the age of the prisoner (younger will probably live longer) It is a very close race when it comes to costs. Financially life may be the cheaper option.

Add up all the appeal costs and care of the condemned up to the disposal of the body and I would think that it could be about the same as life without parole.....
Oh and I think the system needs the appeals to remove mistakes...but then I think that beyond reasonable doubt is not good enough to hand out death in the first place.

[JPaul]

I think it's beyond all reasonable doubt, not just beyond reasonable doubt.

But I could be wrong there, or maybe that's just the UK.

Or maybe it's just more pish that I dreamt up.

[Busyman]

Depending on the age of the prisoner (younger will probably live longer) It is a very close race when it comes to costs. Financially life may be the cheaper option.

Add up all the appeal costs and care of the condemned up to the disposal of the body and I would think that it could be about the same as life without parole.....
Oh and I think the system needs the appeals to remove mistakes...but then I think that beyond reasonable doubt is not good enough to hand out death in the first place.
The problem is those appeals exist with lifers as well. :dry:

Prisoners need to work in a rock quary and really do hard labor like they used to.

Prison isn't a deterrent because it has become more lax.
Even the death penalty itself is lax.
If you are going to kill the person, use a firing squad or a guillotine.

Why is even the mode of commission supposed to be humane when the penalty itself is not? :huh:

In the wacky words of wanker...."Do feck all!!!"

[fkdup74]

Depending on the age of the prisoner (younger will probably live longer) It is a very close race when it comes to costs. Financially life may be the cheaper option.

Add up all the appeal costs and care of the condemned up to the disposal of the body and I would think that it could be about the same as life without parole.....

that's why the system needs some tweaking,
and sentences should be carried out expeditiously

http://cpr.ca.gov/report/indrpt/corr/report/7.htm
http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter.html
http://www.kslegislature.org/postaudit/audits_perform/04pa03a.pdf (PDF file)

the costs of a death penalty (trial) far outweigh a non-death penalty case
but the actual carrying out of the sentence, death penalties are half the cost
(see the table on page 13 of the PDF link)
and thats in Kansas, its no doubt more expensive here in California,
in all aspects, death and non-death cases

the cost of housing an inmate is about 28,000 USD per year
so, $560-840k over the 20-30 yrs it would take to actually carry out the sentence
California houses 604 condemned inmates (as per a 2004 study)
thats $16.9 million per year, just in housing costs, over 30 years thats $507 million
when adding in costs of appeals trials alone, it no doubt runs into the billions
just California alone, just for condemned inmates
we could use that money to educate children,
fund more community programs, so they have places to go, things to do,
instead of committing crimes

[Biggles]

There is only one true deterrant and that is certainty of detection. Once detected the decision of what is to be done with the offender is purely up to the perceived needs of the society in which the offence occurred.

In those societies where there is a considerable degree of crime and where the detection rate is depressingly low there is an understandable desire to exact revenge and set an example. However, it is arguable if there is any really significant impact on crime rates.

My own view is that society gains little from aping the tactics of the killers and that simply placing them where they can harm no one else is the best course of action. It is hardly a soft option considering the lengths that criminals will go to avoid detection in the UK. Consequently, I think the decision is the correct one and sets an interesting precedent for future cases.

I do believe, however, that pathological killers should be detained for as long as they are active enough to present a threat to others.

[vidcc]

I think it's beyond all reasonable doubt, not just beyond reasonable doubt.


my point is that it should be without a doubt... any doubt whatsoever and death should be ruled out.

@ FK



and sentences should be carried out expeditiously

I couldn't disagree more. We have had cases recently where people on death row (one was there for 20 years) have been released altogether because they have been proven innocent. Rush to carry out sentence and innocent lives WILL be taken and that is NOT acceptable.
Delayed execution of a guilty person is better than rushed execution of an innocent person.

[Busyman]

that's why the system needs some tweaking,
and sentences should be carried out expeditiously

http://cpr.ca.gov/report/indrpt/corr/report/7.htm
http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter.html
http://www.kslegislature.org/postaudit/audits_perform/04pa03a.pdf (PDF file)

the costs of a death penalty (trial) far outweigh a non-death penalty case
but the actual carrying out of the sentence, death penalties are half the cost
(see the table on page 13 of the PDF link)
and thats in Kansas, its no doubt more expensive here in California,
in all aspects, death and non-death cases

the cost of housing an inmate is about 28,000 USD per year
so, $560-840k over the 20-30 yrs it would take to actually carry out the sentence
California houses 604 condemned inmates (as per a 2004 study)
thats $16.9 million per year, just in housing costs, over 30 years thats $507 million
when adding in costs of appeals trials alone, it no doubt runs into the billions
just California alone, just for condemned inmates
we could use that money to educate children,
fund more community programs, so they have places to go, things to do,
instead of committing crimes
The only problem is killing an innocent.

There still has to be some good form of appeals process.

Hell I've seen lifers later proven innocent with new DNA evidence.
(for many DNA testing wasn't around or ubiquitous)

We also could tighten up what beyond reasonable doubt is when it involves the death penalty.
I mean if the person is caught on tape doing the crime then gotta go gotta go!!!
But if it's questionable like I guess the Lacy Peterson case then no.

[Busyman]

There is only one true deterrant and that is certainty of detection. Once detected the decision of what is to be done with the offender is purely up to the perceived needs of the society in which the offence occurred.

In those societies where there is a considerable degree of crime and where the detection rate is depressingly low there is an understandable desire to exact revenge and set an example. However, it is arguable if there is any really significant impact on crime rates.

My own view is that society gains little from aping the tactics of the killers and that simply placing them where they can harm no one else is the best course of action. It is hardly a soft option considering the lengths that criminals will go to avoid detection in the UK. Consequently, I think the decision is the correct one and sets an interesting precedent for future cases.

I do believe, however, that pathological killers should be detained for as long as they are active enough to present a threat to others.
The problem is that it is already bad enough that the person committed a horrific crime against society. They further drain society by being put into sort of a pseudo-exile but one in which that society foots the bill for the inmates luxuries (yes LUXURIES). :dry:

[Biggles]

The problem is that it is already bad enough that the person committed a horrific crime against society. They further drain society by being put into sort of a pseudo-exile but one in which that society foots the bill for the inmates luxuries (yes LUXURIES). :dry:

Luxuries :blink: We talking about an Audi Quattro or toilet paper?

However, I do agree that the level to which a society could sustain such a policy is directly proportional to the crime rate. A high crime rate really eats into society like a cancer and the ability of the body social to sustain it for any length of time is extremely limited. However, I do think the control of crime is 1) more linked to possibilty of arrest rather than any potential punishment and 2) the cohesion of that society to a shared set of values.

[Busyman]

Luxuries :blink: We talking about an Audi Quattro or toilet paper?

However, I do agree that the level to which a society could sustain such a policy is directly proportional to the crime rate. A high crime rate really eats into society like a cancer and the ability of the body social to sustain it for any length of time is extremely limited. However, I do think the control of crime is 1) more linked to possibilty of arrest rather than any potential punishment and 2) the cohesion of that society to a shared set of values.
Not so.

If I'm arrested with a slap on the wrist, I was still arrested yet I might arbitrarily break my foot off in someone's ass without a second thought.......again.

[Busyman]

JPaul-

As re your statement about deterrence:

How would one go about gathering statistical evidence about how many people do not commit murder due to fear of being put to death themselves?

I think this begs your conclusion.
Thank you j2.

I asked basically the same question with no answer.

Someone has been cornered. :ph34r:

[Biggles]

One would think a society suffering a high crime rate would have a concurrent lack of "cohesion" to a proper set of "shared values".

At least theoretically.

Probably more than theoretically. T'is what I was alluding too. Fixing crime begins in the cradle rather than the execution chamber. Likewise detection of crime is easier if the society at large finds it abhorant. There is not much point in stealing an object if no one will buy it, but rather chose to phone the police and say "there is a chap in my local trying to sell stolen goods".

Quite how one fosters a shared set of values once they are lost is another matter. It is the modern alchemist's stone for politicians.

:blushing: Sorry Vidcc.

[Biggles]

Not so.

If I'm arrested with a slap on the wrist, I was still arrested yet I might arbitrarily break my foot off in someone's ass without a second thought.......again.


I agree that following arrest more should happen than a mere tickle (unless administered by Mr Jackson :fear: - allegedly). However, one could have the situation as pertained in the UK in the 18th century where there were in the region of 120 capital offences but surprisingly few executions because they either couldn't catch the villians or juries refused to convict them (deeming hanging a bit harsh for sheep fondling).

[bigboab]

I have just read a really long article on this subject. It ends that we have only three choices:


1) Not to have the death penalty and the genuine problems it causes and continue to accept the relatively high levels of murder and other serious crimes that we presently have.

2) Re-introduce capital punishment for just the "worst" murderers which would at least be some retribution for the terrible crimes they have committed and would permanently incapacitate them. It would also save a small amount of money each year which could, perhaps, be spent on the more genuinely needy. This option is unlikely to reduce crime levels.

3) Re-introduce the death penalty and see a corresponding drop in serious crime whilst accepting that there will be a lot of human misery caused to the innocent families of criminals and that there will be the occasional, if inevitable, mistakes.

They way to check as to whether it is a deterrent or not is to look at murder statistics in a country that has abolished capital punishment. Compare them to when they had capital punishment and allow for the various changes in health care, divorce rate etc.

[JPaul]

JPaul-

As re your statement about deterrence:

How would one go about gathering statistical evidence about how many people do not commit murder due to fear of being put to death themselves?

I think this begs your conclusion.
I say again, whether it is a deterrent, whether the innocent are executed is not the point. Tho' those reasons in and of themselves would be enough to abolish the death sentence. The point is that it is wrong and untenable.

However to address your point, inane as it is. There are various ways of achieving this, including but not limited to :

1. Take a society which had a death sentence then removed it. Compare the levels of crimes which may have resulted in a death sentence. Has there been an increase, a decrease or neither.

2. See above but reverse it, bring the death sentence in, what changes are observed.

3. Compare societies which are otherwise broadly similar but one has the death sentence, see which one has the higher level of relevant crime, if any.

I however believe that it is up to those who advocate killing people to prove that it has this alleged deterrent effect.

However the honest answer is that the death sentence is societal revenge. I wish no part of that.

[fkdup74]

@ vid & Busy -
I should have expanded on my post that the system needs tweaking,
I meant the entire judicial system
so, as vid said, it can proven without a doubt, period
as it is, I am certain that innocents go to prison,
and yes I had heard of that case where the verdict was overturned many years later

with modern forensics, it should be easier to determine a verdict, without error
.....you would think.... :unsure:

but anyway, heres a good question....
what of uncontested murder charges? confessions?
should they hold the right to a plea or an appeal for a lesser sentence?
I mean, confessions can be coerced.....
hmmm...maybe another thread for that one....
sorry 'bout teh cawkjackin of yer thread vid,
but you opened a can of worms with this one :P

[vidcc]

I've come to the conclusion that, if life in prison actually (wonder of wonders) meant life in prison; no parole-not no way-not no how, it could, if properly managed, be as agonizing as I want it to be.

I arrived at this conclusion after long consideration of the extraordinary legal costs of execution represented by the appeals process (it currently takes, on average, about 11 years to carry out the death sentence), which make the costs of life imprisonment a relative bargain, fiscally.

Just to make sure I'm clear on this , you are now for substituting the death penalty with life without parole across the board? Assuming this is the case then you have answered satisfactorily




Bombing an abortion clinic, while the act of a madman, has at least a rationale, or purpose, twisted though it might be.

I think that anything can have a rationale, or purpose if it's allowed to be twisted :blink:

[vidcc]

Actually, no.

I would say I favor the death penalty in cases of an outright admission of horrible guilt,

Then how come you think it right in this case that death is off the table if he makes "an outright admission of horrible guilt"....pleads guilty.


I appreciate coercion or mental factors in such cases, but then we have executed people suffering these more than once.

Edit: one has to assume that this case does have hard evidence and not just a confession

[Busyman]

I say again, whether it is a deterrent, whether the innocent are executed is not the point. Tho' those reasons in and of themselves would be enough to abolish the death sentence. The point is that it is wrong and untenable.

However to address your point, inane as it is. There are various ways of achieving this, including but not limited to :

1. Take a society which had a death sentence then removed it. Compare the levels of crimes which may have resulted in a death sentence. Has there been an increase, a decrease or neither.

2. See above but reverse it, bring the death sentence in, what changes are observed.

3. Compare societies which are otherwise broadly similar but one has the death sentence, see which one has the higher level of relevant crime, if any.

I however believe that it is up to those who advocate killing people to prove that it has this alleged deterrent effect.

However the honest answer is that the death sentence is societal revenge. I wish no part of that.
Is the wrath of God a deterrent?

If so or if not, give me a measurement supporting it. :ermm:

[vidcc]

j2-

perhaps it's lack of sleep or increased noise and attention distractions but your response isn't clear to me.

I think, in this specific case, that he should be sentenced to life
you then said this

I've come to the conclusion that, if life in prison actually (wonder of wonders) meant life in prison; no parole-not no way-not no how, it could, if properly managed, be as agonizing as I want it to be.

I arrived at this conclusion after long consideration of the extraordinary legal costs of execution represented by the appeals process (it currently takes, on average, about 11 years to carry out the death sentence), which make the costs of life imprisonment a relative bargain, fiscally.
to me this means you see it as a fiscal reason and i assumed that if it is fiscally prudent for one it must be for all.

Then you said that your view has nothing to do with the abortion issue (i accept that) and said that the plea bargain was "disgusting" and talked about the olympics (your personal connection) saying that he was just a "domestic terrorist"

so i am still unsure as to why you feel this case is different from any other in deserving death

[hobbes]

Vidcc,

As I said before, isn't understanding the psychology of the jurors a logical explanation for avoiding the death penalty.

They want a conviction they can hang their hats on.

No big conspiracy, just legistics meets idealism.

[vidcc]

Vidcc,

As I said before, isn't understanding the psychology of the jurors a logical explanation for avoiding the death penalty.

They want a conviction they can hang their hats on.

No big conspiracy, just legistics meets idealism.

I understand that they may not think a jury would hand out a death sentence, but why would that stop them from trying? The jury will find guilty or innocent then recommend the sentence... why limit that recommendation.

[vidcc]

I think the death penalty should find application here (this is strictly as an example of my own reasoning) due to the above-noted lack of a "rationale" for the Olympic bombing;

see...

that wasn't so hard to say :rolleyes: :lol:

[JPaul]

Is the wrath of God a deterrent?

If so or if not, give me a measurement supporting it. :ermm:
I really have no intention of answering that irrelevance, certainly not in this thread.

If as j2 states this is a purely secular matter in your country then of what possible significance can the "wrath of God" be.

j2,

There are no purely secular matters in the UK, as we join Church and State.

[Busyman]

I really have no intention of answering that irrelevance, certainly not in this thread.

If as j2 states this is a purely secular matter in your country then of what possible significance can the "wrath of God" be.
Simple yes or no answer. That is all.

Since I know you are not that dense then you know what the significance is but choose not to answer. Maybe it's that common sense thing that I've heard you say doesn't exist.

I won't revisit this since it is plainly obvious you have been cornered on what is a deterrent.

Either you haven't a clue what a deterrent is or you are sticking to your guns and feigning ignorance.

Either way it's bull:shit:

:dry:

[MCHeshPants420]

Simple yes or no answer. That is all.

Since I know you are not that dense then you know what the significance is but choose not to answer. Maybe it's that common sense thing that I've heard you say doesn't exist.

I won't revisit this since it is plainly obvious you have been cornered on what is a deterrent.

Either you haven't a clue what a deterrent is or you are sticking to your guns and feigning ignorance.

Either way it's bull:shit:

:dry:


What is the significance of your question then? Maybe I'm too dense but it just looks to me like Busyman is badgering the witness with a useless question...

[JPaul]

No,

Genuinely don't see the significance.

The death penalty relates to anyone within the country which has it. Anything relating to God would only be relevant to those who believe that God exists. Even then it would only relate to anyone who believes God has a certain nature.

I am not "cornered", your question is simply irrelevant.

[bigboab]

The wrath of God is not a deterrent to murder. But the promise of the wrath of God is.

IMO if you compared 1 million god fearing, religious people with 1 million non-religious people(Excluding fanatics from both sides) I think the murder rate would be higher in the secular million.

I think this would be extremely difficult to prove or disprove.

[Busyman]

No,

Genuinely don't see the significance.

The death penalty relates to anyone within the country which has it. Anything relating to God would only be relevant to those who believe that God exists. Even then it would only relate to anyone who believes God has a certain nature.

I am not "cornered", your question is simply irrelevant.
I at least thank you for answering. ;)

Now the reason I asked....

Anything is a deterrent if the threat of punishment makes one not commit the crime.

The wrath of God, or threat of hell is a deterrent for some and so is the death penalty. It can be argued that simple imprisonment is a deterrent but even in that it affects psyche of different people differently as does the fear of God.

Your point was that it was institutionalized murder which is a good point. However, you made reference to it's deterrence which kinda throws the irrelevancy bit out da window. :dry:

Wait....you didn't answer...

[Busyman]

What is the significance of your question then? Maybe I'm too dense but it just looks to me like Busyman is badgering the witness with a useless question...
Whts teh sgnificance fo yrsou?

Shit you aren't even the person that was being asked?

Bandwagoning... :dry:

Seems like you are dense.

[JPaul]

Your point was that it was institutionalized murder which is a good point. However, you made reference to it's deterrence which kinda throws the irrelevancy bit out da window. :dry:

My point is that I do not think it is a deterrent, however even if it were it would not change my position that it (the death penalty) is wrong.

It (deterrence) is therefore irrelevant when formulating a decision on whether the death penalty should exist. As the answer to the question (re any detterrent effect) has no bearing on the decision making process.

I think that is clear enough.

The bottom line, as anyone can see, is that it is society's revenge on the offender. It is pandering to the masses and the state demonstrating that it is "tough on crime".

My country, I am glad to say does not do this.

[vidcc]

IMO if you compared 1 million god fearing, religious people with 1 million non-religious people(Excluding fanatics from both sides) I think the murder rate would be higher in the secular million.

What would you define as murder? Because i'm sure that many have been killed in the name of religion. Would you classify acts of killing during "religious wars" as murders? the man in this thread (remember him?) committed his crimes against places that didn't side with his religious views.

So as you said about proof or disproof....

[Busyman]

The wrath of God is not a deterrent to murder. But the promise of the wrath of God is.

IMO if you compared 1 million god fearing, religious people with 1 million non-religious people(Excluding fanatics from both sides) I think the murder rate would be higher in the secular million.

I think this would be extremely difficult to prove or disprove.
You can't prove everything with stats, especially with that method.

Just think about it. It's very simple.

Does the threat of punishment deter crime? Can it?

Of course.

If I tell someone that they won't get a speeding ticket for driving too fast, hmmm they juuuuust might speed. :dry:

Some may do it even with this threat of punishment. Those people aren't deterred.

Up the fine (like what's being done in a certain corridor in Virginia) and more may be deterred. (they have up to a $2000 fine due to too many accident on a certain stretch of highway).

[MCHeshPants420]

Whts teh sgnificance fo yrsou?

Shit you aren't even the person that was being asked?

Bandwagoning... :dry:

Seems like you are dense.

I was just reading the thread and wondering what you were going on about*, surely I'm allowed to ask? I don't really consider that "bandwagoning", though I could point the finger at you and accuse you of cheerleading in this very thread. :dry:


*You don't seem to have the ability to make yourself very clear when posting, usually resorting to smilies and the same tired phrases you spew out everywhere.

[Busyman]

My point is that I do not think it is a deterrent, however even if it were it would not change my position that it (the death penalty) is wrong.

It (deterrence) is therefore irrelevant when formulating a decision on whether the death penalty should exist. As the answer to the question (re any detterrent effect) has no bearing on the decision making process.

I think that is clear enough.

The bottom line, as anyone can see, is that it is society's revenge on the offender. It is pandering to the masses and the state demonstrating that it is "tough on crime".

My country, I am glad to say does not do this.
I already knew that you think whether it was deterrent was irrelevant in relation to it's wrongness.

However, you simply making the point that it wasn't a deterrent made it up for discussion and therefore not irrelevant. (Why would you make irrelevant points? :blink: )

No one is trying to get you to change your position man. It ain't ignorant to stick to those guns but is admirable.

[Busyman]

I was just reading the thread and wondering what you were going on about*, surely I'm allowed to ask? I don't really consider that "bandwagoning", though I could point the finger at you and accuse you of cheerleading in this very thread. :dry:


*You don't seem to have the ability to make yourself very clear when posting, usually resorting to smilies and the same tired phrases you spew out everywhere.
Then read next time. (I obviously hadn't gotten there yet :ohmy: )

I couldn't give a shit about your finger pointing. (same tired phrase + smiley) :dry:

[JPaul]

I already knew that you think whether it was deterrent was irrelevant in relation to it's wrongness.

However, you simply making the point that it wasn't a deterrent made it up for discussion and therefore not irrelevant. (Why would you make irrelevant points? :blink: )

No one is trying to get you to change your position man. It ain't ignorant to stick to those guns but is admirable.
I see the confusion. Maybe.

Please read my last again. I think it is irrelevant in the decision making process. Other people obviously do not. they think that the deterrent effect (which they believe exists) justifies the killing.

It is therefore relevant to this discussion, however (to me) it is irrelevant in deciding on whether there should be a death penalty, as whether it is a deterrent is neither here nor there.

[clocker]

The bottom line, as anyone can see, is that it is society's revenge on the offender. It is pandering to the masses and the state demonstrating that it is "tough on crime".

Well, not anyone.
I can't, for instance.

Your use of the words "revenge" and "pandering" attaches emotional and moral facets to the argument that I feel are irrelevant ( just as the deterrent defence, IMO).

In essence, the death penalty is simply a reasonable and logical* societal response to those whose behaviour is so irredeemable that there is no place in the society for them.

What constitutes "irredeemable" is certainly open for debate, but I think that the lack of the ultimate, irreversable punishment renders all lesser disciplines illogical*.
How can you justify the same sentence for Adolph Eichmann and Lisl Auman for instance?


*Channeling Spock, apparently.

[JPaul]

In essence, the death penalty is simply a reasonable and logical* societal response to those whose behaviour is so irredeemable that there is no place in the society for them.

As indeed is locking them up and throwing away the key.

However that does not involve society killing people.

[Busyman]

As indeed is locking them up and throwing away the key.
...but you pay for it.....for the rest of their life.

Remunerated exile. :dry:

[JPaul]

...but you pay for it.....for the rest of their life.

Remunerated exile. :dry:
We've covered this.

I would enforce labour, as outlined previously.

[Busyman]

We've covered this.

I would enforce labour, as outlined previously.
Oh I missed where you said that.

[bigboab]

What would you define as murder? Because i'm sure that many have been killed in the name of religion. Would you classify acts of killing during "religious wars" as murders? the man in this thread (remember him?) committed his crimes against places that didn't side with his religious views.

So as you said about proof or disproof....

I would class anyone who kills using religion as an excuse as a fanatic. It always depends what side you are on. People wanting change in the old Soviet Union were Freedom fighters. People in Iraq wanting 'invaders' out are Insurgents.


You can't prove everything with stats, especially with that method.
Of course you cant. Because people would just come back with other statistics to try and disprove yours. If you are not going to use statistics you should not quote instances to prove a point.

[Busyman]

I would class anyone who kills using religion as an excuse as a fanatic. It always depends what side you are on. People wanting change in the old Soviet Union were Freedom fighters. People in Iraq wanting 'invaders' out are Insurgents.


Of course you cant. Because people would just come back with other statistics to try and disprove yours. If you are not going to use statistics you should not quote instances to prove a point.
Instances tell more of the story than stats.

Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.

However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.

Stat out out the window. :dry:

The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.

[manker]

Instances tell more of the story than stats.

Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.

However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.

Stat out out the window. :dry:

The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.No ... instances, by their very nature, are one off events. Properly prepared statistics tell the story of a lot of instances so tell you what's most likely to happen.

Of course a statistic is not always right but it is infinitely more reliable than one instance.

I could say that you won't remember pi to any more than 1000 digits, even if you practiced all day - because of statistics yet a few instances say that it's possible.

[bigboab]

Instances tell more of the story than stats.

Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.

However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.

Stat out out the window. :dry:

The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.

Are you saying that this discussion can not be resolved? Because you cant prove one way or another.

The USA has one of the highest murder rates in the world. It also retains the death penalty. One could say that the murder figure would be a lot higher if it was not for the skill of the medical world.

I dont think it can be proved or disproved whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not. My personal opinion says that if it is a deterrent why do they have to keep carrying out.

[hobbes]

Instances tell more of the story than stats.

Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.

However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.

Stat out out the window. :dry:

The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.


You are telling me that one anecdotal event overthrows what statisitcs bears out.

You flip a coin twice and it is heads both times, you want to tell me that the chance per flip is not 50/50?

You want to bring up the time that not wearing a safety belt saved a life because the victim was thrown from the car, which went over as cliff and ignore the other 999 times?

Anecdotal evidence is the anti-thesis of science.

You, yourself, would be dead had that nut case grabbed a gun instead of a hammer. Your six guns and box of shirikins were of no use to you.

You should have learned something there.

[Busyman]

Are you saying that this discussion can not be resolved? Because you cant prove one way or another.

The USA has one of the highest murder rates in the world. It also retains the death penalty. One could say that the murder figure would be a lot higher if it was not for the skill of the medical world.

I dont think it can be proved or disproved whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not. My personal opinion says that if it is a deterrent why do they have to keep carrying out.
I explained that before.....

Is hell a deterrent?

Remove the death penalty...now is life in prison a deterrent?

It's very simple.

[manker]

I dont think it can be proved or disproved whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not. My personal opinion says that if it is a deterrent why do they have to keep carrying out.I don't think it can be unequivocally proven since comparisons are fraught with difficulties but wrt the second sentence, it would only no longer be necessary to carry it out if it was a deterrent to 100% of the populous. If it was merely a deterrent to 99.999% of the population then it would still be carried out.

[vidcc]

I would class anyone who kills using religion as an excuse as a fanatic. It always depends what side you are on. People wanting change in the old Soviet Union were Freedom fighters. People in Iraq wanting 'invaders' out are Insurgents.

fanatics, whatever, it's still murder in my book and many a murder has been carried out because of religious beliefs.

I went through this before with busy.

having religion doesn't equal morality and having no religion doesn't equal immorality.


IMO if you compared 1 million god fearing, religious people with 1 million non-religious people(Excluding fanatics from both sides) I think the murder rate would be higher in the secular million.

I have to take this to task because we are seeing non fanatics every day being charged with murder. The BTK killer...a church leader, not a fanatic, not claiming god told him to do it.... Catholic priests buggering boys, devoutly religious yet not claiming god told them to do it. My point being that these are "god fearing folk" and your opinion really has no basis ( I appreciate you did say it was impossible to prove) and as an atheist I can't agree with this opinion.

[Busyman]

You are telling me that one anecdotal event overthrows an what statisitcs bears out.

You flip a coin twice and it is heads both times, you want to tell me that the chance per flip is not 50/50?

You want to bring up the time that not wearing a safety belt saved a life because the victim was thrown from the car, which went over as cliff and ignore the other 999 times?

Anecdotal evidence is the anti-thesis of science.

You, yourself, would be dead had that nut case grabbed a gun instead of a hammer. Your six guns and box of shirikins were of no use to you.

You should have learned something there.
I never said ignore stats. I said stats don't always equal proper solution.

Your answer is get rid of all guns except I guess law enforcement.

Mine is tighten gun laws.

Your stats don't conclude either solution.
Mine just happens to be more feasible and not a pipe dream. :)

[Busyman]

I don't think it can be unequivocally proven since comparisons are fraught with difficulties but wrt the second sentence, it would only no longer be necessary to carry it out if it was a deterrent to 100% of the populous. If it was merely a deterrent to 99.999% of the population then it would still be carried out.
We have a winner and a thinker here. :)

[hobbes]

I never said ignore stats. I said stats don't always equal proper solution.

Your answer is get rid of all guns except I guess law enforcement.

Mine is tighten gun laws.

Your stats don't conclude either solution.
Mine just happens to be more feasible and not a pipe dream. :)

I believe like you do, that it is a pipe dream and that we should tighten guns laws.

My interest in this thread stems from my interest in why it does work in the UK and why it won't work here.

What are these variable that make our society unique.

I think that is the next question.

But I agree with you that outlawing guns in the US is great on paper, but would not work, today. Perhaps in the future, but definitely not now.

A key problem that needs to be addressed first is Americas infatuation with guns and these "Red Dawn" fantasies so many people have. Good ole' boys working together to thwart their oppressive government or the Commies.

Also we have significant problems related to race and race equality in this country. I think that the attitude of being helpless to succeed and feeling that society is not giving one a fair shake, leads to desperation.

I have been in situation where looking at someone the wrong way lead to an almost life or death situation. The black guy refused to back down, he was willing to take this to death. That is how he earned respect in his world. The white guy had to back down and apologise. The black guy clearly didn't see that as a choice.

I really can't get in to this as I would like as I need to go to work, but I would be interested in knowing why people think it won't work here, presently.

Sometimes your post remind me of "Your America" by Living Colour. One country, 2 distinct and separate Americas.


I look at the T.V.
Your America's doing well
I look out the window
My America's catching hell
I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America?
I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America?
I change the channel
Your America's doing fine
I read the headlines
My America's doing time
I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America?
I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America?
Go west young, go west young man
Don't want to crossover
But how do I keep from going under?
Where is my picket fence?
My long, tall glass of lemonade?
Where is my VCR, my stereo, my T.V. show?
I look at the T.V.
I don't see your America
I look out the window
I don't see your America
I want to know how to get to your America
I want to know how to get to your America
America

[bigboab]

I don't think it can be unequivocally proven since comparisons are fraught with difficulties but wrt the second sentence, it would only no longer be necessary to carry it out if it was a deterrent to 100% of the populous. If it was merely a deterrent to 99.999% of the population then it would still be carried out.

If yours was the case this discussion would never have risen. My point is, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran on a Friday. If you go anywhere near the public square and let it be known that you are a Westerner you will be pushed to the front of the crowd to see a public execution. This is the crux of my point. Surely if it is a deterrent then puiblic execution would be the best way to demonstate the 'deterrent'. It is not working in Islamic states. Drug trafficking is a Capital Offence in Singapore, yet people are continually committing the offence.

Maybe the decision on capital punishment should be left to the relatives of the victim. I believe this is the case in some middle eastern countries. It would definately take the pressure of the jurors.

[Busyman]

My interest in this thread stems from my interest in why it does work in the UK and why it won't work here.

What are these variable that make our society unique.

I think that is the next question.

But I agree with you that outlawing guns in the US is great on paper, but would not work, today. Perhaps in the future, but definitely not now.

A key problem that needs to be addressed first is Americas infatuation with guns and these "Red Dawn" fantasies so many people have. Good ole' boys working together to thwart their oppressive government or the Commies.

Also we have significant problems related to race and race equality in this country. I think that the attitude of being helpless to succeed and feeling that society is not giving one a fair shake, leads to desperation.

I have been in situation where looking at someone the wrong way lead to an almost life or death situation. The black guy refused to back down, he was willing to take this to death. That is how he earned respect in his world. The white guy had to back down and apologise. The black guy clearly didn't see that as a choice.
We have another winner.

Without me going into details, I have always said that the dynamic of our countries (UK, USA, Sweden) are entirely different.

I grew up in a violent area but as a youngster, knew about many people getting shot. It was always about being tough, physically and mentally.

I get a little older....say something off to me you get a punch in the jaw and made you think that if you said something else that I would stomp the shit out of you.

This is why I made the DisneyWorld comments earlier.

[Busyman]

If yours was the case this discussion would never have risen. My point is, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran on a Friday. If you go anywhere near the public square and let it be known that you are a Westerner you will be pushed to the front of the crowd to see a public execution. This is the crux of my point. Surely if it is a deterrent then puiblic execution would be the best way to demonstate the 'deterrent'. It is not working in Islamic states. Drug trafficking is a Capital Offence in Singapore, yet people are continually committing the offence.

Maybe the decision on capital punishment should be left to the relatives of the victim. I believe this is the case in some middle eastern countries. It would definately take the pressure of the jurors.
Sorry boab but it's hard for me to say the obvious sometimes.

I see many folks give the obvious answer to many things and instead I like folks to figure it out.

All deterrents don't work for everyone.

Sometimes I think people avoid the obvious answer just to stick to their guns about their point.

[manker]

If yours was the case this discussion would never have risen. My point is, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran on a Friday. If you go anywhere near the public square and let it be known that you are a Westerner you will be pushed to the front of the crowd to see a public execution. This is the crux of my point. Surely if it is a deterrent then puiblic execution would be the best way to demonstate the 'deterrent'. It is not working in Islamic states. Drug trafficking is a Capital Offence in Singapore, yet people are continually committing the offence.

Maybe the decision on capital punishment should be left to the relatives of the victim. I believe this is the case in some middle eastern countries. It would definately take the pressure of the jurors.I didn't say my figure was the case, I used it to demonstrate a point.

You said that it wasn't a deterrent because the punishment still happens, I said that isn't so. I tried to make it clear that we're not dealing with absolutes.

The question isn't whether it's a deterrent or not - because it plainly is to some. More pertinent to the discussion is whether it's more of a deterrent than life imprisonment without parole.

[bigboab]

Sometimes I think people avoid the obvious answer just to stick to their guns about their point.

Exactly. I agree completely. I think everyone in here should say that. :lol:

[Busyman]

The question isn't whether it's a deterrent or not - because it plainly is to some. More pertinent to the discussion is whether it's more of a deterrent than life imprisonment without parole.
Luckily we have an assortment of flavors to choose from. :)

[manker]

Sometimes I think people avoid the obvious answer just to stick to their guns about their point.You mean like when people say they don't have a fear of burglars when they have six guns and a munitions dump in their laundry room ;)

[manker]

The question isn't whether it's a deterrent or not - because it plainly is to some. More pertinent to the discussion is whether it's more of a deterrent than life imprisonment without parole.Luckily we have an assortment of flavors to choose from. :)Tbh, that doesn't matter to me. Sometimes a price is just too high, no matter what good becomes of it.

I think taking a life is one of those things ... however, the discussion seems to be moving away from that so I thought I'd pitch in :ermm:

[Busyman]

You mean like when people say they don't have a fear of burglars when they have six guns and a munitions dump in their laundry room ;)
I was really waiting for that. :shifty:

tbh I really don't worry about itnow.

At the time of preparation, ya damn skippy. ;)

Some fear can keep you alive.

[Busyman]

Tbh, that doesn't matter to me. Sometimes a price is just too high, no matter what good becomes of it.

I think taking a life is one of those things ... however, the discussion seems to be moving away from that so I thought I'd pitch in :ermm:
I can respect that.

I can also respect that those like-minded folks in America pay for the "forever" room and board for the heinous folk that they want to keep alive. :)

[JPaul]

More pertinent to the discussion is whether it's more of a deterrent than life imprisonment without parole.
I had taken that as being read, hence not actually spelling it out.

And it still doesn't matter if it is. Life imprisonment serves the purposes of protecting society and the punishment of the offender.

Make them work and pay for their own keep, serves to lessen the burden on the rest of us. Feck if it were done properly it could raise funds for us.

Guess what , if it turns out the person is innocent we can let them go as well.

I can't stand all those bleeding heart liberals who don't have the heart for making a person stay in prison for 40 years, with no hope of parole and no control over their own life.

[JPaul]

You're my hero. :)
:blushing:

Am I everything you wish you could be.

[manker]

I had taken that as being read, hence not actually spelling it out.Likewise.

However, if taken in context, you'll see why I thought it necessary at that juncture :ermm:

[Busyman]

Make them work and pay for their own keep, serves to lessen the burden on the rest of us. Feck if it were done properly it could raise funds for us.
:shifty:

[JPaul]

Likewise.

However, if taken in context, you'll see why I thought it necessary at that juncture :ermm:
Absolutely, probably should have done it earlier (me not you), however we hold some truths to be self evident. Wait, that's another speech.

[fkdup74]

Maybe the decision on capital punishment should be left to the relatives of the victim. I believe this is the case in some middle eastern countries. It would definately take the pressure of the jurors.

'boab, maybe this is kind of a bad idea?
putting a life or death decision in the hands of, say, a grief-stricken mother?

not an attack on your thought by any means,
it just seems that....that could actually be a step backwards,
on a system that already is under scrutiny

[JPaul]

Well...I do
Even if you are a wee bit of a twat. :D
The best amongst us invariably are.