The Death Penalty

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091111/us-sniper-execution/

Considering the execution of one of the most infamous mass murderers in the US, it's again there before us: how do we justify killing criminals? How does that solve the problem?

[Machu505]

It doesn't solve any problem. Crime rates aren't affected (West Virginia has a very low crime rate and no death penalty) and killing a killer doesn't bring the killed back.
I'm opposed under all circumstances.

[Mitch]

Getting more and more opposed to it every day, whereas I was previously neutral. It seems so....barbaric.

[saysmydoctor]

Also a corollary:

Are there some things that warrant an execution? Crimes considered most heinous. What do we do about child molestation, rape, etc?

[Brand-new-123]

I'd be more in favor for it if it was a quicker process and it cost less money to actually do it in cases of heinous crimes like multiple murders, murder sexual assaults, etc. For instance John Wayne Gacy, I think was the perfect candidate for the Death Penalty . I just wish in those cases it didn't actually cost more to do them in than keep them in prison under severe circumstances.

[Machu505]

Also a corollary:

Are there some things that warrant an execution? Crimes considered most heinous. What do we do about child molestation, rape, etc?
The concept of capital punishment for child molestation or rape is horrible. If murder and rape have identical consequences, what will stop a rapist from murdering his victim too?

[bNz719]

I am completely against the death penalty under all circumstances, as well.

[Ben09]

Death Penalty is awesome. I'd be in favor of something worse than lethal injection. Let's get the pedophiles in a straight line and then a line of guys with guns in front of them. I'd support something like that.

[crackedthesky]

To me, the whole concept of the death penalty defeats itself:

To prove that killing is wrong, you kill someone.

How, exactly, do you justify that?

[crackedthesky]

Death Penalty is awesome. I'd be in favor of something worse than lethal injection. Let's get the pedophiles in a straight line and then a line of guys with guns in front of them. I'd support something like that.

That's all well and good... until you do it to someone who turned out to be innocent.

Seriously, this post disgusts me. You hate people who make others suffer, so you want to make them suffer? In doing so, you prove yourself no better than the person you're killing. At all.

[The Summer Ends]

I support it. If they aren't going to have a chance to get out with the life without parole, why give them more time to a) escape b) kill again in prison c) waste more space in our already crowded prisons? Just get it over with and kill the criminal in whatever way is deemed most humane or whatever.

[bung]

I support it. If they aren't going to have a chance to get out with the life without parole, why give them more time to a) escape b) kill again in prison c) waste more space in our already crowded prisons?

Because they might be innocent. The amount of innocents released from death row, in combination with the cases where a person's innocence has been proven after they've been executed, demonstrates the failure of capital punishment.

[A7XXX]

Yeah I had no opinion on this matter previously but after watching a documentary featuring a high percentage of "criminals" about to go on the death penalty that were proven to be innocent I decided to be against it. Also I have little faith that the judges' personal opinion and bias could stay out of his decision for some cases

[kafe]

Very very much against it and I agree with what most people said in here, killing a killer can't be justified in any way. Death is an easy way out (unless you believe in Hell).

[loudpunkguitar]

to me, the idea of the death penalty is not about revenge or anything like that. it is about punishment and protection. punishment in that certain actions can be committed in which the person gives up their right to be alive. protection in that someone who has harmed society is prevented from doing it again. the problem is that our system doesn't handle it right. as has been stated way too much money is spent on it, and way too many errors in judgment take place. it should only be considered when guilt is proven.

personally, however, i would rather we place those who commit such heinous crimes into high security prisons where they can perform some sort of manual labor that benefits the country. that way they are removed from society (protection) and providing a service (balancing out the cost, or even making up for more than the actual cost). in the event that fifteen or twenty years down the line they are proven innocent, they can be released and compensated for their years of work. it's not a perfect plan, and im not smart enough to know how to manage it or make it work, but it seems like a good springboard for someone far smarter than me.

[.invisible ink.]

Because they might be innocent. The amount of innocents released from death row, in combination with the cases where a person's innocence has been proven after they've been executed, demonstrates the failure of capital punishment.

i disagree, i think it demonstrates the failure of our judicial system more so than the failure of capital punishment. i'm all in favor of the death penalty - when it's done on the right person. :-)

edit: honestly though, if prison actually was about *reform* (or even research) not just locking people up and having taxpayers support them for the rest of their lives, then i probably would be against the death penalty, but since there is no reform going on in most prisons, i'll stick with approving of the death penalty and disapproving of the judicial system and how it operates currently.

[konvalbr]

He deserved it. everyone's all for letting killers live until someone they love is killed. Then they're after the killers head. I don't know, this guy just drove around with a teenager and they shot and killed random people for no apparent reason. I bet people here would say the shooter and Ft Hood shouldn't be executed either even though he killed 12 people. You only get one shot at life, one, that's it. And he ended 12 of them for absolutely no reason other than his selfishness. Fair is fair and he should have his taken from him then too. People here need to get out of their little dorm room, quit buying every word their hippie professors selling them, and actually experience life and come up with their own beliefs about society and wonder what if it had happened to them. Because if someone shot and killed someone I love for no reason, I know for a fact I'd be calling for his head, and every single one of you would be too.

[jeremypeele]

He deserved it. everyone's all for letting killers live until someone they love is killed. Then they're after the killers head. I don't know, this guy just drove around with a teenager and they shot and killed random people for no apparent reason. I bet people here would say the shooter and Ft Hood shouldn't be executed either even though he killed 12 people. You only get one shot at life, one, that's it. And he ended 12 of them for absolutely no reason other than his selfishness. Fair is fair and he should have his taken from him then too. People here need to get out of their little dorm room, quit buying every word their hippie professors selling them, and actually experience life and come up with their own beliefs about society and wonder what if it had happened to them. Because if someone shot and killed someone I love for no reason, I know for a fact I'd be calling for his head, and every single one of you would be too.

This is true.


I support the death penalty when it's done to the right person.

[Praetor]

Everything I want to say has already been said. Oppose it vigorously.

edit: I take that back, not everything I want to say (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/deathpenalty.html) has already been said.



Percent of death row that is African-American192: 42.9%
Percent of U.S. that is African-American193: 12.8%

[loveisdead]

Everything I want to say has already been said. Oppose it vigorously.

edit: I take that back, not everything I want to say (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/deathpenalty.html) has already been said.
[/list]
Ouch.

[GeeBee]

I realize it's no deterrent. However, I like the idea that we as a collective group of humans have determined that there are some crimes against our group that warrant your extrication from said group. Certain actions remove you from the category of "humanity", hence you lose the right to walk among us. That being said...I'm all for death penalty requiring the most strident standards of DNA proof. I'm also all for juries being called upon to make the determination of whether to execute or not.

That being said...I don't necessarily "support" the death penalty in its current state. I feel that there's a racist undertone to the current system, as well as undefined standards for it. However, I support the idea that certain behaviors exclude you from the right to live in an otherwise civil society.

[GeeBee]

Very very much against it and I agree with what most people said in here, killing a killer can't be justified in any way. Death is an easy way out (unless you believe in Hell).

This logic doesn't hold water. In a sense, when you lock up a thief, you've essentially "stolen" his goods for a certain amount of time. That's stealing from a stealer.

[Smash Adams]

I still can't fathom that we're right below Iraq in terms of numbers of people executed by the state,when I learned that in my Human Rights class my jaw dropped
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4099

I don't think we should abolish the death penalty necessarily though, since I don't think it addresses the real issue-which is that we're a violent, prejudiced, and prudish/conservative nation

[loveisdead]

I realize it's no deterrent. However, I like the idea that we as a collective group of humans have determined that there are some crimes against our group that warrant your extrication from said group. Certain actions remove you from the category of "humanity", hence you lose the right to walk among us. That being said...I'm all for death penalty requiring the most strident standards of DNA proof. I'm also all for juries being called upon to make the determination of whether to execute or not.

That being said...I don't necessarily "support" the death penalty in its current state. I feel that there's a racist undertone to the current system, as well as undefined standards for it. However, I support the idea that certain behaviors exclude you from the right to live in an otherwise civil society.
That's an interesting way to look at it. I'm sorta on the fence about the death penalty.

[saysmydoctor]

Everything I want to say has already been said. Oppose it vigorously.

edit: I take that back, not everything I want to say (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/deathpenalty.html) has already been said.
[/list]
:appl:

[Chrisj182]

I'm so glad there is no death penalty here. Killing the killer doesn't bring the killed back.

[bung]

I realize it's no deterrent. However, I like the idea that we as a collective group of humans have determined that there are some crimes against our group that warrant your extrication from said group. Certain actions remove you from the category of "humanity", hence you lose the right to walk among us.


How barbaric, to treat someone as if they have no humanity.

[tfot11]

Getting more and more opposed to it every day, whereas I was previously neutral. It seems so....barbaric.
barbaric? I'm guessing what was truly barbaric is whatever the person did to get the death penalty. I'm tired of my taxes going towards the $25,000-$30,000 per year it takes to pay to imprison someone. If it's first degree murder, get rid of them. The only reason crime rates don't drop because of the death penalty is because all of the bureaucrats and bleeding hearts in this country stop it from happening in any significant numbers. They make it take too long and cost way more than it needs to.

[Jennurna Gray]

If killing puts you up for death penalty, whomever supports death penalty is also part of killing, therefore, whomever supports death penalty should receive death penalty, so on and so forth.
Eventually, we all die out.

[Josh Weinstein]

Also a corollary:

Are there some things that warrant an execution? Crimes considered most heinous. What do we do about child molestation, rape, etc?

There's a reason why rape charges don't warrant the death penalty. If a person who commits rape and knows if he is caught, he could be executed, so he/she will be motivated to kill the person being raped so they can't accuse him/her.

[TheHays]

so after reading through this thread, it's become very obvious that most people in here are opposed to the death penalty. so the question i ask is what alternative methods of "punishment" would you deem cost-efficient and humane for criminals who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes imaginable?

[sleepyseanzzz]

Just to clarify some facts in this case:

1. This man murdered 10 people. Truth.

2. This man was not mentally ill despite what his attorney said. Proven.

3. This man's plan was to extort 10 million dollars to start a camp that trained children to become terrorists. Straight from the mouth of his accomplice.

4. This man threatened to kill his 2nd ex-wife. Straight from her mouth.

I'm happy he isn't around anymore.

[Laural666]

There not here anymore!

[loudpunkguitar]

so the question i ask is what alternative methods of "punishment" would you deem cost-efficient and humane for criminals who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes imaginable?

even though i am not opposed to the death penalty, i think i offered a good alternative idea. one that i would prefer to the death penalty. i was actually hoping to get some feedback on it, whether people think its a good or bad idea.

i would rather we place those who commit such heinous crimes into high security prisons where they can perform some sort of manual labor that benefits the country. that way they are removed from society (protection) and providing a service (balancing out the cost, or even making up for more than the actual cost). in the event that fifteen or twenty years down the line they are proven innocent, they can be released and compensated for their years of work. it's not a perfect plan, and im not smart enough to know how to manage it or make it work, but it seems like a good springboard for someone far smarter than me.

[caveBEAR]

Everything I want to say has already been said. Oppose it vigorously.

edit: I take that back, not everything I want to say (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/deathpenalty.html) has already been said.

[/LIST]

Not trying to shoot this down, but how much does it cost to keep said prisoner in jail as opposed to the death sentence? (Just curious, if anyone knows)

[saysmydoctor]

Just to clarify some facts in this case:

1. This man murdered 10 people. Truth.

2. This man was not mentally ill despite what his attorney said. Proven.

3. This man's plan was to extort 10 million dollars to start a camp that trained children to become terrorists. Straight from the mouth of his accomplice.

4. This man threatened to kill his 2nd ex-wife. Straight from her mouth.

I'm happy he isn't around anymore.
You didn't make a point for the death penalty. We all know the background of the case.

[Brand-new-123]

Everything I want to say has already been said. Oppose it vigorously.

edit: I take that back, not everything I want to say (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/deathpenalty.html) has already been said.
[/list]
Percent of U.S. that is African-American: 12.8%
Percent of U.S. that is White: 82.2%
Percent of U.S. that is Hispanic: 11.8%
Percent of U.S. that is Native American: 0.9%
Percent of U.S. that is Asian: 4.1%
My math is a little fuzzy but, I think that adds up to something like 111.8%

[Machu505]

He deserved it. everyone's all for letting killers live until someone they love is killed. Then they're after the killers head. I don't know, this guy just drove around with a teenager and they shot and killed random people for no apparent reason. I bet people here would say the shooter and Ft Hood shouldn't be executed either even though he killed 12 people. You only get one shot at life, one, that's it. And he ended 12 of them for absolutely no reason other than his selfishness. Fair is fair and he should have his taken from him then too. People here need to get out of their little dorm room, quit buying every word their hippie professors selling them, and actually experience life and come up with their own beliefs about society and wonder what if it had happened to them. Because if someone shot and killed someone I love for no reason, I know for a fact I'd be calling for his head, and every single one of you would be too.
There's a reason we have an impartial system, you know.

[Nightfox33]

I think we need an eye for an eye!

[CubbyNick42]

Living out your natural life in prison is a fate worse than death.

[caveBEAR]

If killing puts you up for death penalty, whomever supports death penalty is also part of killing, therefore, whomever supports death penalty should receive death penalty, so on and so forth.
Eventually, we all die out.

Whoever supports the Eagles supports dog fighting!

Your point is bullshit.

[caveBEAR]

so after reading through this thread, it's become very obvious that most people in here are opposed to the death penalty. so the question i ask is what alternative methods of "punishment" would you deem cost-efficient and humane for criminals who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes imaginable?

How about we bring back the jobs from overseas and turn prisons into factories? Telemarketing facilities? Instead of American flags saying 'Made In China' they can say 'Made By A Convict'. That's badass.

[Mitch]

barbaric? I'm guessing what was truly barbaric is whatever the person did to get the death penalty. I'm tired of my taxes going towards the $25,000-$30,000 per year it takes to pay to imprison someone. If it's first degree murder, get rid of them. The only reason crime rates don't drop because of the death penalty is because all of the bureaucrats and bleeding hearts in this country stop it from happening in any significant numbers. They make it take too long and cost way more than it needs to.

So you think the state should practice barbarism as well?

And, like you suggested, putting someone on death row costs more money than, say, a life sentence.

I also disagree that "the only reason crime rates don't drop because of the death penalty is because all of the bureaucrats and bleeding hearts in this country stop it from happening in significant numbers." People that have the audacity to murder someone are going to do so whether or not they are aware of the consequences.

[John JD Dorian]

there is no real justification for the death penalty other than bloodthirst and revenge.

[Mitch]

there is no real justification for the death penalty other than bloodthirst and revenge.

This, and I don't think that's nearly a good enough reason for the state to take a life when there are other ways to protect people from the criminal (i.e., imprisonment without parole).

[myplanforescape]

Not trying to shoot this down, but how much does it cost to keep said prisoner in jail as opposed to the death sentence? (Just curious, if anyone knows)

The costs tends to vary from state to state, but not only do capital trials cost more, but also housing an inmate on death row tends to cost more. There is some pretty good information about the costs in different states here http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

My math is a little fuzzy but, I think that adds up to something like 111.8%

Hispanic in the U.S. tends to be counted as an ethnicity rather than a race. So you can have a White Hispanic, Black Hispanic, etc.

[caveBEAR]

The costs tends to vary from state to state, but not only do capital trials cost more, but also housing an inmate on death row tends to cost more. There is some pretty good information about the costs in different states here http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty


Thank you!

[MyNameIsRoss]

If it's certain that the person is guilty, I have no problem with a serial killer or whomever being executed.

[bluecrunchy]

I'm opposed to this under all circumstances. Though slim, there is always a possibility that the person is innocent or could genuinely repent for his or her crimes. It also makes no sense to use murder as a punishment for murder.

[sleepyseanzzz]

If it's certain that the person is guilty, I have no problem with a serial killer or whomever being executed.

I totally agree with you 100%.

[saysmydoctor]

If it's certain that the person is guilty, I have no problem with a serial killer or whomever being executed.
And your justification?

[Praetor]

Not trying to shoot this down, but how much does it cost to keep said prisoner in jail as opposed to the death sentence? (Just curious, if anyone knows)
I have no statistics but I have heard that it is actually more expensive to execute a prisoner then to keep him or her in the prison system. I don't know why that is but I'll look for more information. It's likely because capital punishment trials cost so much more.

edit: beaten to it
My math is a little fuzzy but, I think that adds up to something like 111.8%
Good point, I didn't notice that. My point still stands - a vastly disproportionate number of African-Americans are executed by the state.

[sleepyseanzzz]

You didn't make a point for the death penalty. We all know the background of the case.

If I voice my opinion on the death penalty these people that are against it will crucify me and it's not worth it. I have my own opinions I don't need to make a point for it for you.

[Praetor]

If I voice my opinion on the death penalty these people that are against it will crucify me and it's not worth it. I have my own opinions I don't need to make a point for it for you.
Oh, now you're all butthurt because you said genocide was great and people called you out on it?

[sleepyseanzzz]

He deserved it. everyone's all for letting killers live until someone they love is killed. Then they're after the killers head. I don't know, this guy just drove around with a teenager and they shot and killed random people for no apparent reason. I bet people here would say the shooter and Ft Hood shouldn't be executed either even though he killed 12 people. You only get one shot at life, one, that's it. And he ended 12 of them for absolutely no reason other than his selfishness. Fair is fair and he should have his taken from him then too. People here need to get out of their little dorm room, quit buying every word their hippie professors selling them, and actually experience life and come up with their own beliefs about society and wonder what if it had happened to them. Because if someone shot and killed someone I love for no reason, I know for a fact I'd be calling for his head, and every single one of you would be too.

i want to be your friend.

[sleepyseanzzz]

Oh, now you're all butthurt because you said genocide was great and people called you out on it?

go fuck yourself im glad this terrorist is dead. thats what he was.

[Cameronisonfire]

I support it.
If the person has no remorse and is totally apathetic to their crime, I think they should get the shot or chair. Prison is meant to rehabilitate and if the guilty party could care less why waste room in our over crowded prisons with someone who will not be rehabilitated. However, I think if the person who committed the crime has general remorse for their crime they should stay in prison for a while and perform labor or in some way contribute to society so that the first and last thing they think of every day would most likely be why they are there.

[caveBEAR]

If I voice my opinion on the death penalty these people that are against it will crucify me and it's not worth it. I have my own opinions I don't need to make a point for it for you.

You've already voiced your opinion through your message and tone; however, you've left us without justification for those thoughts, and based on what we read in the War on Afghanistan thread yesterday, all that leaves us with is the image of you as a blood-thirsty nationalist who is afraid to defend his views.

But, hey, if that sums you up, then cool, less work for us.

How are those flight lessons going?

[sleepyseanzzz]

He also wasn't remorseful at all.

[saysmydoctor]

If I voice my opinion on the death penalty these people that are against it will crucify me and it's not worth it. I have my own opinions I don't need to make a point for it for you.
Yes, you do. That's purpose of this fucking forum--debate and discussion.

[sleepyseanzzz]

You've already voiced your opinion through your message and tone; however, you've left us without justification for those thoughts, and based on what we read in the War on Afghanistan thread yesterday, all that leaves us with is the image of you as a blood-thirsty nationalist who is afraid to defend his views.

But, hey, if that sums you up, then cool, less work for us.

How are those flight lessons going?

If you wish this guy was still alive then I just feel bad for you.

[QuikTrig]

Good point, I didn't notice that. My point still stands - a vastly disproportionate number of African-Americans are executed by the state.

it's not like crimes are committed proportionately to our demographic composition.

98.6 of people on death row are men. only 49.3% of america is men. does that indicate sexism?

and no, i'm not naive. i know racial undertones have a significant effect on judges, juries, etc. but to suggest that it should be proportionate is just outrageous.

[Kozzy333]

I am against the death penalty but I wouldn't say that I am strongly against it.

[caveBEAR]

If you wish this guy was still alive then I just feel bad for you.

I don't wish death on anyone.

EDIT: When did I say I wished he was alive? Finding flaws within capital punishment & wishing that killers were still alive is quite the leap there, buddy.

[Machu505]

Why is it that as a society we view a person making a decision to take their own life as something bad, yet when a mob decides a person is no longer deserving of life, it's viewed as just?

[sleepyseanzzz]

Yes, you do. That's purpose of this fucking forum--debate and discussion.

Ok, I support it 100%. If someone kills someone that is innocent and the killer isn't remorseful about it then I think they should be executed. They had their chance at life and by ending someone else's they lost their chance. I told you that this guy killed 10 people and was planning to extort money to start a terrorist camp that trains children. If he killed someone I knew and loved then I would want him executed. I would also be trying to get Malvo executed too, yeah he was 17 but he knew what he was doing was wrong.

[saysmydoctor]

If you wish this guy was still alive then I just feel bad for you.
...Why?
it's not like crimes are committed proportionately to our demographic composition.

98.6 of people on death row are men. only 49.3% of america is men. does that indicate sexism?

and no, i'm not naive. i know racial undertones have a significant effect on judges, juries, etc. but to suggest that it should be proportionate is just outrageous.
No one was suggesting it was proportionate or needed to be. He pointed out the disparity that makes no sense when we can see clear as day how the white elite get away with crimes.

[saysmydoctor]

Ok, I support it 100%. If someone kills someone that is innocent and the killer isn't remorseful about it then I think they should be executed. They had their chance at life and by ending someone else's they lost their chance. I told you that this guy killed 10 people and was planning to extort money to start a terrorist camp that trains children. If he killed someone I knew and loved then I would be trying to get Malvo executed too, yeah he was 17 but he knew what he was doing was wrong.
You aren't doing anything but creating a vicious and endless state of war.

[caveBEAR]

Why is it that as a society we view a person making a decision to take their own life as something bad, yet when a mob decides a person is no longer deserving of life, it's viewed as just?

Bingo.

[John JD Dorian]

the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime has always been hilarious to me.

as if a murderer, right before he kills, thinks this:

''i know i'm gonna get caught, but i don't care because i'll only have to spend my entire life in prison!!! wow, i'm so glad there's no death penalty, because if there were there would be no way i would risk it. but since the only bad thing that can happen to me is that i am behind bars for the rest of my life, no reason not to!"

idiots.

[sleepyseanzzz]

You aren't doing anything but creating a vicious and endless state of war.

Wrong, it is removing the spineless, murderous, scum from the Earth. I don't get where you come off thinking that killing killers creates war. Killing killers removes them from society so they can't kill again. I bet you were offended by the Boondock Saints too.

[caveBEAR]

the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime has always been hilarious to me.

as if a murderer, right before he kills, thinks this:

''i know i'm gonna get caught, but i don't care because i'll only have to spend my entire life in prison!!! wow, i'm so glad there's no death penalty, because if there were there would be no way i would risk it. but since the only bad thing that can happen to me is that i am behind bars for the rest of my life, no reason not to!"

idiots.

Again, bingo.

[caveBEAR]

Wrong, it is removing the spineless, murderous, scum from the Earth. I don't get where you come off thinking that killing killers creates war. Killing killers removes them from society so they can't kill again. I bet you were offended by the Boondock Saints too.

What if the person that was executed was innocent?

[saysmydoctor]

the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime has always been hilarious to me.

as if a murderer, right before he kills, thinks this:

''i know i'm gonna get caught, but i don't care because i'll only have to spend my entire life in prison!!! wow, i'm so glad there's no death penalty, because if there were there would be no way i would risk it. but since the only bad thing that can happen to me is that i am behind bars for the rest of my life, no reason not to!"

idiots.
Have you ever spent extended time in a place where you life is completely controlled by some guard with a baton? When your meals are decided for you and the time you eat, shower, etc, etc, is mandated by these guards with batons?
Wrong, it is removing the spineless, murderous, scum from the Earth. I don't get where you come off thinking that killing killers creates war. Killing killers removes them from society so they can't kill again. I bet you were offended by the Boondock Saints too.
And creates other 'spineless, murderous scum.'

[sleepyseanzzz]

What if the person that was executed was innocent?

i said if he is guilty and not remorseful then he should be executed. case and point john mohammed that was executed last night. he was guilty and not remorseful for what he did. so im not opposed to his execution. obviously its wrong to execute the innocent but isnt that what killers do? im against the execution of innocent people but seriously there is a small percentage of people who get the chair or injection that are actually innocent.

[sleepyseanzzz]

Have you ever spent extended time in a place where you life is completely controlled by some guard with a baton? When your meals are decided for you and the time you eat, shower, etc, etc, is mandated by these guards with batons?

And creates other 'spineless, murderous scum.'

how does it create other murderers? seriously? where is your logic? killing killers creates less killers, not more, its fucking 1st grade math.

[fightinirish217]

What if the person that was executed was innocent?

I've tried to find these numbers, does anyone know how many times this has happened before? Sorry if it's already been noted previously in here.

[saysmydoctor]

i said if he is guilty and not remorseful then he should be executed. case and point john mohammed that was executed last night. he was guilty and not remorseful for what he did. so im not opposed to his execution. obviously its wrong to execute the innocent but isnt that what killers do? im against the execution of innocent people but seriously there is a small percentage of people who get the chair or injection that are actually innocent.
...1 or 1000, who gives a fuck, they are innocent.

[saysmydoctor]

how does it create other murderers? seriously? where is your logic? killing killers creates less killers, not more, its fucking 1st grade math.
You don't think family, friends, etc would be furious, upset, and irrational over the loss of their son/daughter/friend/husband/wife? It's a perpetual cycle.

We can look at empirically/numerically, like you are trying to, and show that nations without the death penalty generally have a lower crime rate proportionally.

[QuikTrig]

...Why?

No one was suggesting it was proportionate or needed to be.

a vastly disproportionate number of African-Americans are executed by the state.

by saying "a vastly disproportionate number...", there is obviously somewhat of a suggestion that it should be proportionate. as to what the proportion should be, i genuinely want to know.

any research or links on the topic? obviously racism plays a role in the justice system. but at the same time, the socioeconomic structures that many african american's are subject to promote crime. i honestly have no idea of what the "true" crime rate ratio is relative to race, but I would think that african americans would be represented much higher anyway.

[sleepyseanzzz]

...1 or 1000, who gives a fuck, they are innocent.

the number is tiny, its got to be less than 1 percent. i for one as a citizen of the United States feel more comfortable and at ease when a serial killer is executed. i dont think killing a serial killer creates more killers. according to your logic it does. its doing the exact opposite of what you think, and its doing what everyone wants. its killing serial killers.

[saysmydoctor]

the number is tiny, its got to be less than 1 percent. i for one as a citizen of the United States feel more comfortable and at ease when a serial killer is executed. i dont think killing a serial killer creates more killers. according to your logic it does. its doing the exact opposite of what you think, and its doing what everyone wants. its killing serial killers.
There should be a 0% chance of an innocent person getting killed intentionally.

[sleepyseanzzz]

There should be a 0% chance of an innocent person getting killed intentionally.

I agree with you there. But I also believe there should be a 100% chance of a guilty, non remorseful person getting killed intentionally.

[caveBEAR]

i said if he is guilty and not remorseful then he should be executed. case and point john mohammed that was executed last night. he was guilty and not remorseful for what he did. so im not opposed to his execution. obviously its wrong to execute the innocent but isnt that what killers do? im against the execution of innocent people but seriously there is a small percentage of people who get the chair or injection that are actually innocent.

If you hadn't gotten so defensive and just explained that you were talking more about the sniper you could have avoided a lot of grief. Seriously, by using words like 'spineless' and 'Un-American', you aren't making debate, you're just coming off as a tool who can't think for himself. Calm down, tone it down, and start talking and maybe everyone won't jump down your throat.

That said, I don't support the death penalty, but if someone is going to be executed, I would rather it be someone like the sniper than someone who ends up being charged on faulty evidence and turns out guilty. As well, crimes of passion are definitely different than a well thought out plan like this guy had, and shouldn't result in a death penalty (don't know if it does).

[sleepyseanzzz]

There should be a 0% chance of an innocent person getting killed intentionally.

I still want to know your logic behind giving serial killers the death penalty creates more serial killers. That means that when a serial killer is put to death that some innocent person decides "oh man! i want that too!" and then goes off and kills people. It's impossible. Putting serial killers to death does more good than harm.

[caveBEAR]

the number is tiny, its got to be less than 1 percent. i for one as a citizen of the United States feel more comfortable and at ease when a serial killer is executed. i dont think killing a serial killer creates more killers. according to your logic it does. its doing the exact opposite of what you think, and its doing what everyone wants. its killing serial killers.

Less serial killers have escaped from jail than innocent people have been put to death.

[MyNameIsRoss]

And your justification?


no justification. it's not an issue i have particular strong feelings about. but i certainly have no moral objection to the concept, as long as the justice system does it's part, and innocent people aren't being executed, which I know isn't always the case.

[saysmydoctor]

I still want to know your logic behind giving serial killers the death penalty creates more serial killers. That means that when a serial killer is put to death that some innocent person decides "oh man! i want that too!" and then goes off and kills people. It's impossible. Putting serial killers to death does more good than harm.
And I've shown that it creates a perpetual cycle.

[FueledByFrodo]

how does it create other murderers? seriously? where is your logic? killing killers creates less killers, not more, its fucking 1st grade math.
Actually killing killers balances out the number of killers. Unless ore than one person kill the murderer. Then you've added more. THAT'S first grade math.

Also, by killing, no matter who you are killing, you've just added more. If any civilian were to kill a known murderer, not out of self-defense, but just because they knew that they had murdered, they' still be tried. So why is it acceptable for the government to kill the murderers?

[JuneJuly]

I'm oppsed to the death penalty.

Was the guy who was executed the white van dude?

[saysmydoctor]

no justification. it's not an issue i have particular strong feelings about. but i certainly have no moral objection to the concept.
So you have moral objection with a man killing another man, but you have no problem with a state killing a man?

[caveBEAR]

I still want to know your logic behind giving serial killers the death penalty creates more serial killers. That means that when a serial killer is put to death that some innocent person decides "oh man! i want that too!" and then goes off and kills people. It's impossible. Putting serial killers to death does more good than harm.

I think his point was supposed to be that if you kill a murderer, you run the risk of their loved ones trying to get vengeance on the system by killing others. It's a weeeeeee bit of hyperbole, and I do agree with you that (if that was what he meant) then it's really not true.

[caveBEAR]

And I've shown that it creates a perpetual cycle.

How so?

[QuikTrig]

We can look at empirically/numerically, like you are trying to, and show that nations without the death penalty generally have a lower crime rate proportionally.

correlated, but does not imply causation.

hasn't it been pretty much proven that deterrents are the last thing a criminal is thinking about, especially in crimes worthy of capital punishment? anyone trying to argue for the death penalty as a deterrent is dumb.

aren't there only two "developed" countries or something like that that still allow the death penalty? well shoot, i would hope that there would be a lot of nations with a lower crime rate. south africa, mexico, russia, etc...they're near the top in murders per capita, but have abolished the death penalty.

imo, to be truly honest, i think there's absolutely no correlation/causation between sentencing and crime rates.

[MyNameIsRoss]

So you have moral objection with a man killing another man, but you have no problem with a state killing a man?

I edited this post 10 seconds after you quoted it

But, yes that's correct.

[sleepyseanzzz]

If you hadn't gotten so defensive and just explained that you were talking more about the sniper you could have avoided a lot of grief. Seriously, by using words like 'spineless' and 'Un-American', you aren't making debate, you're just coming off as a tool who can't think for himself. Calm down, tone it down, and start talking and maybe everyone won't jump down your throat.

That said, I don't support the death penalty, but if someone is going to be executed, I would rather it be someone like the sniper than someone who ends up being charged on faulty evidence and turns out guilty. As well, crimes of passion are definitely different than a well thought out plan like this guy had, and shouldn't result in a death penalty (don't know if it does).

Alright, you're right man. My stance on the death penalty is if the person commits murder and is not remorseful then it should be an automatic death penalty. If the person is remorseful then it is different, I can see life imprisonment granted the person didn't murder more than one person. Some people have murdered one person as an act of rage or something and are totally remorseful and the victim's family can forgive them. But if they murder like 20 people then decide it is wrong then that crosses the line and I still think they should be considered for the death penalty. Also, many people actually put on death row are guilty. The odds are astronomical nowadays with all this CSI stuff and detective and police work that go into these cases, they sure as hell aren't meaning to try and put an innocent person to death. If somebody killed my parents or my brother or my sister my grandparents I would want them to be executed without a doubt. Even if they apologized to me. I believe in forgiveness but forgiveness won't bring back my loved one. You always have to think of it as if you were in the situation. If someone could murder a family member of yours and you are okay with them being in jail or even getting let out for good behavior or (lets just go with the batman begins situation where bruce's parents' murderer was let out of jail because he led to the arrest and conviction of a mob boss) then you are a very strong person.

[sleepyseanzzz]

You don't think family, friends, etc would be furious, upset, and irrational over the loss of their son/daughter/friend/husband/wife? It's a perpetual cycle.

We can look at empirically/numerically, like you are trying to, and show that nations without the death penalty generally have a lower crime rate proportionally.

if my dad killed someone then was put to death i sure as shit wouldnt go buy a shotgun and shoot people up if that is what you are inferring.

[sleepyseanzzz]

Actually killing killers balances out the number of killers. Unless ore than one person kill the murderer. Then you've added more. THAT'S first grade math.

Also, by killing, no matter who you are killing, you've just added more. If any civilian were to kill a known murderer, not out of self-defense, but just because they knew that they had murdered, they' still be tried. So why is it acceptable for the government to kill the murderers?

people that inject the poison or pull the switch that turns on the electric chair arent killers in the sense that serial killers are. you got me there because technically the guy pulling the switch is a murderer. but im talking about serial killers, if you kill a serial killer then that makes one less serial killer in the world

[sleepyseanzzz]

I'm oppsed to the death penalty.

Was the guy who was executed the white van dude?

yes but it turned out it wasnt a white van it was a small car. but i remember when it was going on the police released pictures of a white van they thought they were using

[saysmydoctor]

correlated, but does not imply causation.

hasn't it been pretty much proven that deterrents are the last thing a criminal is thinking about, especially in crimes worthy of capital punishment? anyone trying to argue for the death penalty as a deterrent is dumb.

aren't there only two "developed" countries or something like that that still allow the death penalty? well shoot, i would hope that there would be a lot of nations with a lower crime rate. south africa, mexico, russia, etc...they're near the top in murders per capita, but have abolished the death penalty.

imo, to be truly honest, i think there's absolutely no correlation/causation between sentencing and crime rates.
You just listed nations that have suffered years of unrest and state institutions that hindered on their rights extensively.
if my dad killed someone then was put to death i sure as shit wouldnt go buy a shotgun and shoot people up if that is what you are inferring.
You aren't representative of the population.

[sleepyseanzzz]

You just listed nations that have suffered years of unrest and state institutions that hindered on their rights extensively.

You aren't representative of the population.
im pretty sure 99.9999999 percent of the population wouldn't go killing people in vengeance of their serial killer father was put to death.

[FueledByFrodo]

people that inject the poison or pull the switch that turns on the electric chair arent killers in the sense that serial killers are. you got me there because technically the guy pulling the switch is a murderer. but im talking about serial killers, if you kill a serial killer then that makes one less serial killer in the world
Actually you'd have many many more. People who say they support the death penalty imply that they'd have no problem enforcing it. Meaning many more killers, even if it is of killers. When you think about it, it's likely that the people who actually kill the murderers have/will kill/killed more people in their lifetime than the people being sentenced to death.

[sleepyseanzzz]

Actually you'd have many many more. People who say they support the death penalty imply that they'd have no problem enforcing it. Meaning many more killers, even if it is of killers. When you think about it, it's likely that the people who actually kill the murderers have/will kill/killed more people in their lifetime than the people being sentenced to death.

Although your avatar is amazing, I have to respectfully disagree and say that I support the death penalty. But it would be very hard for me to pull the plug on someone. Even if I had no problem pulling the plug, it doesn't make me a serial killer.

Edit: If you want to get a new guy to pull the plug every time then that would mean the serial killers killed more people but yes you are correct in saying that people who's primary source of income come from pulling the plug on a serial killer kill more people over the course of their career than serial killers do. I'd rather have those people who's just it is to pull the plug be alive as opposed to serial killers in the sense of murdering innocent people, not the serial killer sense that you think is anyone who pulls the plug on a guilty murderer is a serial killer.

[FueledByFrodo]

Although your avatar is amazing, I have to respectfully disagree and say that I support the death penalty. But it would be very hard for me to pull the plug on someone. Even if I had no problem pulling the plug, it doesn't make me a serial killer.
I didn't say serial killer, I said they would have killed more people than the person sentenced to death.

[caveBEAR]

You aren't representative of the population.

im pretty sure 99.9999999 percent of the population wouldn't go killing people in vengeance of their serial killer father was put to death.

I really have to side with Sean here, if you are trying to infer that the death penalty causes family members or loved ones of the executed to become murderers, then I am gonna need some evidence of that. If we are misunderstanding you, then could you clarify?

[Corgkowznor]

Good point, I didn't notice that. My point still stands - a vastly disproportionate number of African-Americans are executed by the state.

You're using that stat to your advantage...there are more African-Americans in prison, and more African-Americans on Death Row, so consequently, there will be more African-Americans executed. Now you can open the Pandora's box about racial bias and social inequalities and how that may put more African-Americans in our prison system, but to use that stat is slightly misleading

[sleepyseanzzz]

if by putting guilty serial killers to death creates more serial killers. and those serial killers created are just the people that pull the plug which some people are inferring to saying that those serial killers are created when they pull the plug on other serial killers, it means they dont make more, it just means one is dead and another who killed him is now a serial killer. but that person may have killed 3 people that morning so he'd already be a serial killer by the time he got to the next guilty murdering serial killer (of innocent people). its very confusing but if everyone agrees that people who inject or pull the plug or whatever are now serial killers, then i am fine with the fact that killing serial killers creates more serial killers. because i know that those serial killers wouldnt harm an innocent person intentionally.

[caveBEAR]

im pretty sure 99.9999999 percent of the population wouldn't go killing people in vengeance of their serial killer father was put to death.

You can't keep using serial killer, the discussion has branched out to the death penalty in general, not just the sniper. Not all people on death row are serial killers.

[caveBEAR]

Actually you'd have many many more. People who say they support the death penalty imply that they'd have no problem enforcing it. Meaning many more killers, even if it is of killers. When you think about it, it's likely that the people who actually kill the murderers have/will kill/killed more people in their lifetime than the people being sentenced to death.

No. No, no, no, no, no. Fucking no.

By that leap, all people in the armed sources go around murdering babies. No, that doesn't work.

EDIT: Unless you just mean by the numbers. In which case...that's not really the point, again with the armed forces scenario. They're following orders. If those people are murderers, aren't people who killed in the armed forces?

[saysmydoctor]

im pretty sure 99.9999999 percent of the population wouldn't go killing people in vengeance of their serial killer father was put to death.
Oh. Well since you're oretty sure.
if by putting guilty serial killers to death creates more serial killers. and those serial killers created are just the people that pull the plug which some people are inferring to saying that those serial killers are created when they pull the plug on other serial killers, it means they dont make more, it just means one is dead and another who killed him is now a serial killer. but that person may have killed 3 people that morning so he'd already be a serial killer by the time he got to the next guilty murdering serial killer (of innocent people). its very confusing but if everyone agrees that people who inject or pull the plug or whatever are now serial killers, then i am fine with the fact that killing serial killers creates more serial killers. because i know that those serial killers wouldnt harm an innocent person intentionally.
I would argue the executioners constitute as serial killers, so you saying we eliminate murder slowly overtime by killing those criminals is wholy inaccurate.

[FueledByFrodo]

No. No, no, no, no, no. Fucking no.

By that leap, all people in the armed sources go around murdering babies. No, that doesn't work.

EDIT: Unless you just mean by the numbers. In which case...that's not really the point, again with the armed forces scenario. They're following orders. If those people are murderers, aren't people who killed in the armed forces?
I mean it entirely by numbers.

[QuikTrig]

You just listed nations that have suffered years of unrest and state institutions that hindered on their rights extensively.

.

which is what i was getting at. sentencing is the last thing that will influence crime rates. capital punishment/anti-capital punishment is almost a non-issue to me. we should focus time and energy on solving what causes crime; not on what happens after a crime is committed.

[caveBEAR]

I mean it entirely by numbers.

Still, that doesn't make them murderers. It's an entirely different ball-game. You can play it like that, but then you have to include any member of the armed forces, police, etc., that have ever killed before in the line of duty. Do you?

[myplanforescape]

Good point, I didn't notice that. My point still stands - a vastly disproportionate number of African-Americans are executed by the state.

I responded to the guy directly, but I think you might have missed it, the data on that site still stands. In the U.S. Hispanic is often considered an ethnicity not a race, so you can be both African American and Hispanic or Caucasian and Hispanic etc.. Which accounts for the extra 11.8%. Also something you might find interesting is while a disproportionate number of African-Americans are executed, the race of the victim appears to have a very strong influence on who is executed. This chart represents the victims of Death Row Inmates since 1976.
BLACK 14%
HISPANIC 5%
WHITE 79%
OTHER 2%
Source for the chart if you're interested: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976#Vic

[Corgkowznor]

...1 or 1000, who gives a fuck, they are innocent.

If we can't prove that they are innocent in the initial trial...or the 15 years of appeals and appeals, and the review by the governor for clemency, and maybe all the way up to the supreme court....

isn't that a problem with our legal system, and not with capital punishment itself?

And all you're doing is saying if he's innocent, we're killing an innocent man...well if you're right, but there's no death penalty, we are having an innocent man rot in prison while the legal system continues to fail him time and time again.

Capital punishment is not the problem the way that you are arguing.

[sleepyseanzzz]

Oh. Well since you're oretty sure.

I would argue the executioners constitute as serial killers, so you saying we eliminate murder slowly overtime by killing those criminals is wholy inaccurate.

Yes, executioners are serial killers1 (lets call people who pull the plug serial killers1), we agree there. But having them killing serial killers2(lets say these are people who murdered innocent people out in the world) doesn't create more serial killers2 as i said most people in the world aren't going to try to get vengeance on people after their serial killer2 father was executed by serial killer1. serial killer1 is okay with me because he is basically like a boondock saint or a dexter, he is eliminating all the serial killer2 because it is his job, it doesn't make him evil at heart. i would rather the world have more serial killer1 who at 5:00 punch out and go grab a drink with their buddies like it was nothing then have more serial killer2 alive with a chance to escape (although highly unlikely, also possible seeing as anything we are talking about in this debate is possible)

[caveBEAR]

If we can't prove that they are innocent in the initial trial...or the 15 years of appeals and appeals, and the review by the governor for clemency, and maybe all the way up to the supreme court....

isn't that a problem with our legal system, and not with capital punishment itself?

And all you're doing is saying if he's innocent, we're killing an innocent man...well if you're right, but there's no death penalty, we are having an innocent man rot in prison while the legal system continues to fail him time and time again.

Capital punishment is not the problem the way that you are arguing.

It's the same as the 'pandora's box' of race relations and prisons. More African-Americans are killed by the death penalty because there are more African-Americans in jail overall.

These are small cogs in larger problems.

[FueledByFrodo]

Still, that doesn't make them murderers. It's an entirely different ball-game. You can play it like that, but then you have to include any member of the armed forces, police, etc., that have ever killed before in the line of duty. Do you?
I'm actually not calling them murders only stating a fact.

[sleepyseanzzz]

You can't keep using serial killer, the discussion has branched out to the death penalty in general, not just the sniper. Not all people on death row are serial killers.

I know but I told you my view is on serial killers. I told you one time killers who did it out of emotion and rage can be forgiven in my view especially by the victim's family. but my view is that serial killers pretty much automatically should be sent to death row. i'm using serial killers because that's my only view that is not opposed to the death penalty.

[caveBEAR]

I'm actually not calling them murders only stating a fact.

That seems to be what's hinted though. If technically they are not murdering people, then they are not 'murdering' as many people as the people they are executing. It's apples and oranges.

[caveBEAR]

Yes, executioners are serial killers1 (lets call people who pull the plug serial killers1), we agree there. But having them killing serial killers2(lets say these are people who murdered innocent people out in the world) doesn't create more serial killers2 as i said most people in the world aren't going to try to get vengeance on people after their serial killer2 father was executed by serial killer1. serial killer1 is okay with me because he is basically like a boondock saint or a dexter, he is eliminating all the serial killer2 because it is his job, it doesn't make him evil at heart. i would rather the world have more serial killer1 who at 5:00 punch out and go grab a drink with their buddies like it was nothing then have more serial killer2 alive with a chance to escape (although highly unlikely, also possible seeing as anything we are talking about in this debate is possible)

AGAIN, by calling an executioner (or anyone else who has a job where killing may occur) a serial killer, you are bastardizing the term 'serial killer'.

[sleepyseanzzz]

I'm actually not calling them murders only stating a fact.

The Jerk Store called, and their runnin outta you!


not to be taken as offensive just quoting a great line.

[caveBEAR]

I know but I told you my view is on serial killers. I told you one time killers who did it out of emotion and rage can be forgiven in my view especially by the victim's family. but my view is that serial killers pretty much automatically should be sent to death row. i'm using serial killers because that's my only view that is not opposed to the death penalty.

I know, but you have been replying and quoting people discussing the broad sense of the death penalty with only serial killers.

[sleepyseanzzz]

AGAIN, by calling an executioner (or anyone else who has a job where killing may occur) a serial killer, you are bastardizing the term 'serial killer'.

listen, listen, im trying not to bastardize the term serial killer. but mydoctorsays is trying to say that the people who pull the plug are serial killers too so i was trying to separate them into terms that he would understand. i know people who pull the plug aren't serial killers, it's their job. but technically and in the eyes of mydoctorsays, those people are serial killers that are just as bad as the serial killers who kill innocent people so i was just trying to separate the difference in the two by using serial killer1 and serial killer2 in my argument

[Corgkowznor]

Actually killing killers balances out the number of killers. Unless ore than one person kill the murderer. Then you've added more. THAT'S first grade math.

Also, by killing, no matter who you are killing, you've just added more. If any civilian were to kill a known murderer, not out of self-defense, but just because they knew that they had murdered, they' still be tried. So why is it acceptable for the government to kill the murderers?

Wouldn't that 'known' murderer already be in a lot of trouble, seeing as how everyone knew he had murdered previously? Maybe that civilian should have called the cops and let them know where the known murderer was so that they could let the justice system work...this is why we have a justice system, so people don't take it into their own hands.

[John JD Dorian]

Have you ever spent extended time in a place where you life is completely controlled by some guard with a baton? When your meals are decided for you and the time you eat, shower, etc, etc, is mandated by these guards with batons?


you are agreeing with me, yes?

[sleepyseanzzz]

I know, but you have been replying and quoting people discussing the broad sense of the death penalty with only serial killers.

that's because thats my view of the death penalty dude! it's just for serial killers in my opinion! all others i can be opposed to under different circumstances

[caveBEAR]

Wouldn't that 'known' murderer already be in a lot of trouble, seeing as how everyone knew he had murdered previously? Maybe that civilian should have called the cops and let them know where the known murderer was so that they could let the justice system work...this is why we have a justice system, so people don't take it into their own hands.

Exactly. His point is a ridiculous hypothetical that belongs in Batman.

[saysmydoctor]

you are agreeing with me, yes?
Not even remotely.

[caveBEAR]

that's because thats my view of the death penalty dude! it's just for serial killers in my opinion! all others i can be opposed to under different circumstances

But that's my point...the entirety of the death penalty is being discussed, but you only talk about serial killers; however, it's more than just serial killers on death row.

[caveBEAR]

Not even remotely.

I am not sure, but I think you aren't understanding his point. I believe he was trying to say that the death penalty doesn't stop people from murdering, because the idea of prison isn't any better. If someone will kill, they will kill, which seems to be in line with what you feel from your posts.

I think this is a misunderstanding.

[caveBEAR]

OK...I have work, I hope this is still going when I get back. Just 6 hours people!

[John JD Dorian]

I am not sure, but I think you aren't understanding his point. I believe he was trying to say that the death penalty doesn't stop people from murdering, because the idea of prison isn't any better. If someone will kill, they will kill, which seems to be in line with what you feel from your posts.

I think this is a misunderstanding.

yeah, what you said backs up what i said.

[Mitch]

I am not sure, but I think you aren't understanding his point. I believe he was trying to say that the death penalty doesn't stop people from murdering, because the idea of prison isn't any better. If someone will kill, they will kill, which seems to be in line with what you feel from your posts.

I think this is a misunderstanding.

This.

[sleepyseanzzz]

But that's my point...the entirety of the death penalty is being discussed, but you only talk about serial killers; however, it's more than just serial killers on death row.

Alright man, my views in a nutshell

Serial Killers - automatic death penalty despite the age (I think Malvo should get the death penalty despite being 17 because he knows what he did)
All other murderers - its a case by case type thing. if it was a one time thing done out of emotion and rage then it should depend on the victim's family's decision (in fact in one case of Matt Shepard [from the book The Laramie Project, a true story] being murdered just for being gay, his parents were allowed to decide the fate of the two guys that killed their son and they decided to let them stay alive and rot in jail for the rest of their lives)
People who's job it is to pull the plug - are not murderers in the slightest. It is their job, their primary source of income. Don't hate them.

If you didn't kill, then you shouldn't get the death penalty. This isn't talking about innocent people in a murder case when they have the wrong guy which is highly unlikely. If the case is a non-murder case, then no death penalty should be enforced.

[sleepyseanzzz]

OK...I have work, I hope this is still going when I get back. Just 6 hours people!

I'll be killing terrorists in CODMW2 when you get back sorry. Just pick it up tomorrow, is abortion the next great debate?

[Mitch]

Alright man, my views in a nutshell

Serial Killers - automatic death penalty despite the age (I think Malvo should get the death penalty despite being 17 because he knows what he did)
All other murderers - its a case by case type thing. if it was a one time thing done out of emotion and rage then it should depend on the victim's family's decision (in fact in one case of Matt Shepard [from the book The Laramie Project, a true story] being murdered just for being gay, his parents were allowed to decide the fate of the two guys that killed their son and they decided to let them stay alive and rot in jail for the rest of their lives)
People who's job it is to pull the plug - are not murderers in the slightest. It is their job, their primary source of income. Don't hate them.

If you didn't kill, then you shouldn't get the death penalty. This isn't talking about innocent people in a murder case when they have the wrong guy which is highly unlikely. If the case is a non-murder case, then no death penalty should be enforced.

By your logic, hit men aren't murderers despite the fact they kill. Ha.

[sleepyseanzzz]

By your logic, hit men aren't murderers despite the fact they kill. Ha.

i wasn't thinking of hit men or people in the armed forces. but in this debate im talking solely about the guy that performs the execution. hit men would be serial killers most likely and they should be executed. people in the army are not murderers either, they are protecting our freedom.

[zion the lion]

I'm against the death penalty. In the most basic sense, two wrongs dont make a right. They try to call it justice by letting the family of the victim watch, but lethal injection is so anticlimactic, I dont see how anyone could really feel like justice was served by basically seeing someone being put down like a pet dog.

The best thing to do for the worst of the worst criminals would be to let them rot in solitary for the rest of their lives, with nothing but the tapes of the family of the victim crying on the stand talking about how good of a person they were. Let their mind turn on them instead of giving them such an easy way out.

i wasn't thinking of hit men or people in the armed forces. but in this debate im talking solely about the guy that performs the execution. hit men would be serial killers most likely and they should be executed. people in the army are not murderers either, they are protecting our freedom.

I know quite a few people who would only join the army to become a sniper and kill people.

[Neo Cassady]

people that inject the poison or pull the switch that turns on the electric chair arent killers in the sense that serial killers are. you got me there because technically the guy pulling the switch is a murderer. but im talking about serial killers, if you kill a serial killer then that makes one less serial killer in the world

Preface: I am opposed to the death penalty.

Now, a question for you: you seem like a guy who thinks heinous crimes deserve justice (as most of us do), and your definition of justice for murder is for the murderer to be put to death. What's your stance on lethal injection as a means for execution? Do you think putting someone down with a needle (and, if Robin Williams has done his research, an alcohol swab to prevent a last-second infection) and causing unconsciousness followed by cardiac arrest is justice for someone guilty of rape, torture, murder, dismemberment, cannibalism, necrophilia, etc. etc.? In essence, does the punishment fit the crime in your eyes?

[GeeBee]

That's an interesting way to look at it. I'm sorta on the fence about the death penalty.
And it's by no means a black/white issue.
How barbaric, to treat someone as if they have no humanity.
I agree. If you behave without humanity (rape, murder), a jury of your peers ought to be able to determine you unfit to remain in society.
Living out your natural life in prison is a fate worse than death.
On whose dime?
Why is it that as a society we view a person making a decision to take their own life as something bad, yet when a mob decides a person is no longer deserving of life, it's viewed as just?
I disagree. I think a person has every right to take his own life. I also think that a jury of 12 of my peers, if given overwhelming evidence of my guilt in a matter, has the right to deem me unfit to walk among civil human beings.
So you have moral objection with a man killing another man, but you have no problem with a state killing a man?
The state merely carries out the order that was given by a jury of the condemned's peers. I'm all for review of the system itself to ensure that no innocent man goes to his death. However, "states" don't kill people. Juries do. And if you can come up with a fairer justice system, I'm behind you one hundred percent.

[Brand-new-123]

And it's by no means a black/white issue.

I agree. If you behave without humanity (rape, murder), a jury of your peers ought to be able to determine you unfit to remain in society.

On whose dime?

I disagree. I think a person has every right to take his own life. I also think that a jury of 12 of my peers, if given overwhelming evidence of my guilt in a matter, has the right to deem me unfit to walk among civil human beings.

The state merely carries out the order that was given by a jury of the condemned's peers. I'm all for review of the system itself to ensure that no innocent man goes to his death. However, "states" don't kill people. Juries do. And if you can come up with a fairer justice system, I'm behind you one hundred percent.
Wow. I actually think I agree with you for once.

[Josh Weinstein]

In my state, you could receive the death penalty if you pay someone to kill an acquaintance of yours.

[saysmydoctor]

Please, the juries are delicately composed by a prosecutor who operates with the most power in the US judicial system.The juries are designed to maximize the outcome in the favor of 'the People.'

[caveBEAR]

Please, the juries are delicately composed by a prosecutor who operates the most powerful in the US judicial system.The juries are designed to maximize the outcome in the favor of 'the People.'

Yeah, this isn't a gross over-exaggeration... X-)

Actually, I can't really make out if it's an exaggeration, because I think words are missing or something.

[GeeBee]

Please, the juries are delicately composed by a prosecutor who operates the most powerful in the US judicial system.The juries are designed to maximize the outcome in the favor of 'the People.'
Again, I'm all for reform of the system to make it more fair.

My ONLY point on the matter is that I see nothing wrong with a society determining that a certain set of offenses disqualifies you from being a member of humanity. The same is true in advanced species of any kind. If you want to be a member of humanity, there are certain lines you cannot cross.

[sleepyseanzzz]

Preface: I am opposed to the death penalty.

Now, a question for you: you seem like a guy who thinks heinous crimes deserve justice (as most of us do), and your definition of justice for murder is for the murderer to be put to death. What's your stance on lethal injection as a means for execution? Do you think putting someone down with a needle (and, if Robin Williams has done his research, an alcohol swab to prevent a last-second infection) and causing unconsciousness followed by cardiac arrest is justice for someone guilty of rape, torture, murder, dismemberment, cannibalism, necrophilia, etc. etc.? In essence, does the punishment fit the crime in your eyes?

i dont have a stance on the means of execution as long as it got the job done

[sleepyseanzzz]

I know quite a few people who would only join the army to become a sniper and kill people.

good for the people you know. they would be killing enemies...

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, this isn't a gross over-exaggeration... X-)

Actually, I can't really make out if it's an exaggeration, because I think words are missing or something.
No, it's pretty spot-on and one of the first things you get out of any basic Intro to Criminal Justice class.

Only I did miss a word there. Fixed. ;)
Again, I'm all for reform of the system to make it more fair.

My ONLY point on the matter is that I see nothing wrong with a society determining that a certain set of offenses disqualifies you from being a member of humanity. The same is true in advanced species of any kind. If you want to be a member of humanity, there are certain lines you cannot cross.
Well, it's this very logic that religions adopt as well.

[saysmydoctor]

good for the people you know. they would be killing enemies...
The US military rarely kills enemies.

[sleepyseanzzz]

The US military rarely kills enemies.

get out of here with your conspiracies. the US military kills a lot more enemies that you don't know about. theyre not gonna print the name of every last one. that's just so ignorant of you to say that when these people are over there fighting for your freedom. on veteran's day no less!

[Mitch]

You look exactly like someone I studied with in Italy. Weird.

[Machu505]

Proponents of the death penalty should stop using serial killers as their examples and start using Nazi war criminals.

[caveBEAR]

The US military rarely kills enemies.

Oh, come on. Unless you are getting into semantics about the word 'enemy', to say the US military rarely kills enemies is stupid.

I don't support the war(s) at all, but that statement is a blanket statement that is pure bullshit.

[caveBEAR]

Proponents of the death penalty should stop using serial killers as their examples and start using Nazi war criminals.

Is this supposed to be sarcastic or serious?

[GeeBee]

Well, it's this very logic that religions adopt as well.
I've never seen religions be democratic. What I'm talking about is a democratic approach. Society has deemed certain behaviors as illegal. Keeping the peace means certain actions cannot be tolerated. In the most serious offenses, such as those involving children or multiple victims, AND can be proven conclusively (since such technology now exists)...that intolerance would include their very removal from humanity. That removal would have to be agreed upon by a jury. If you can find a more just means of trial, I'm behind you all the way.
good for the people you know. they would be killing enemies...
get out of here with your conspiracies. the US military kills a lot more enemies that you don't know about. theyre not gonna print the name of every last one. that's just so ignorant of you to say that when these people are over there fighting for your freedom. on veteran's day no less!
I'll say it again. you're a fucking idiot.

[zion the lion]

good for the people you know. they would be killing enemies...

No, they'd be killers. They arent doing it to protect us, they arent doing it because they feel they need to serve their country,. They're doing it because they know it's an easy way to get training on how to kill people, and then get away with it. I dont even see how killing "enemies" helps. I dont see how killing at any time (including the death penalty, excluding self defense) solves any problem.

[caveBEAR]

Why isn't killing in self defense as bad as all the other killings we have discussed?

[saysmydoctor]

get out of here with your conspiracies. the US military kills a lot more enemies that you don't know about. theyre not gonna print the name of every last one. that's just so ignorant of you to say that when these people are over there fighting for your freedom. on veteran's day no less!
If they are fighting for my freedom, they'll take no issue with me exercising said freedom (in this case, my freedom of speech). Also, it's ignorant of you to automatically jump to conspiracy theories, as if to say that my argument isn't based on what is and what is not true.
Oh, come on. Unless you are getting into semantics about the word 'enemy', to say the US military rarely kills enemies is stupid.

I don't support the war(s) at all, but that statement is a blanket statement that is pure bullshit.
I can't think of a just war since the 1940s where we have killed legitimate enemies, rather than enemies of our own construction.

So, if you were expecting me to recant, sorry.

[Jennurna Gray]

Whoever supports the Eagles supports dog fighting!

Your point is bullshit.
How so? Explain, darling.

[zion the lion]

Why isn't killing in self defense as bad as all the other killings we have discussed?

How is it just as bad?

[Waldorf]

http://www.ilbaluardo.com/Cover/Audio/M%20-%20N%20-%20O/METALLICA%20-%20Kill%20%27em%20all%20-%20Front.jpg

[caveBEAR]

If they are fighting for my freedom, they'll take no issue with me exercising said freedom (in this case, my freedom of speech). Also, it's ignorant of you to automatically jump to conspiracy theories, as if to say that my argument isn't based on what is and what is not true.

I can't think of a just war since the 1940s where we have killed legitimate enemies, rather than enemies of our own construction.

So, if you were expecting me to recant, sorry.

So, your point is the semantics on the word 'enemy', so no, I'm not expecting you to recant.

How so? Explain, darling.

Merely supporting the death penalty does not make one a murderer, so your point is bullshit.

How is it just as bad?

Why wouldn't it be? Since apparently killing a murderer with the death penalty is essentially murder (or so people in this thread say) why does someone get a free pass when it's self-defense? In a larger sense, isn't the death penalty just self-defense for the community?

[zion the lion]

Why wouldn't it be? Since apparently killing a murderer with the death penalty is essentially murder (or so people in this thread say) why does someone get a free pass when it's self-defense? In a larger sense, isn't the death penalty just self-defense for the community?

How is execution self defense for the community exactly?

[saysmydoctor]

So, your point is the semantics on the word 'enemy', so no, I'm not expecting you to recant.
It's not semantics.

[GeeBee]

I can't think of a just war since the 1940s where we have killed legitimate enemies, rather than enemies of our own construction.
Goddammit this is so true. Well said.

[caveBEAR]

How is execution self defense for the community exactly?

Because you are putting down someone who is a threat to the community. Someone who has killed before, and the logic is, would kill again, and is completely undeserving of freedom or life. If that's not the communities idea of self-defense, then I don't know what is.

It's not semantics.

It is too semantics. I agree, with you, that there hasn't been a just war, well, probably ever. However, the people in the armed forces aren't all rabid monsters taking pleasure in killing innocents. They think they are killing an 'enemy', and therefore, in their eyes (and most of the public) they are not 'murderers'.

[ikikwe]

Because you are putting down someone who is a threat to the community. Someone who has killed before, and the logic is, would kill again, and is completely undeserving of freedom or life. If that's not the communities idea of self-defense, then I don't know what is.

Or you could lock the criminals in prison for the rest of their life. That works too.

[saysmydoctor]

It is too semantics. I agree, with you, that there hasn't been a just war, well, probably ever. However, the people in the armed forces aren't all rabid monsters taking pleasure in killing innocents. They think they are killing an 'enemy', and therefore, in their eyes (and most of the public) they are not 'murderers'.
There are numerous cases of human rights violations on the part of the US military that shows, though they make not take pleasure, still have no issue with killing innocent people.

[Machu505]

Speaking of the death penalty, the military could use it again (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_fort_hood_military_justice) on Nidal Hasan.

[zion the lion]

Because you are putting down someone who is a threat to the community. Someone who has killed before, and the logic is, would kill again, and is completely undeserving of freedom or life. If that's not the communities idea of self-defense, then I don't know what is.

That's not self defense, if they're in jail, they arent going to leave and kill more people. If they've been convicted of first degree murder they arent getting out any time soon. After he was arrested, how was John Allen Muhammad a threat to your community? How was Aileen Wuornos a threat to your community while she was in prison? Execution is not self defense, you're not even in danger, it's just revenge.

And exactly what kind of punishment is death? What happens after you die that's so much worse than living? When you get down to it, the reason the death penalty is around because people are afraid of death.

[GeeBee]

Or you could lock the criminals in prison for the rest of their life. That works too.
Except it doesn't. The U.S. is the jailingest nation in the world, and still retains some of the highest crime rates. In addition, the costs of locking up a criminal for life are going up and crippling municipal and state budgets. So no, jailing criminals indefinitely doesn't work.

[GeeBee]

That's not self defense, if they're in jail, they arent going to leave and kill more people. If they've been convicted of first degree murder they arent getting out any time soon. After he was arrested, how was John Allen Muhammad a threat to your community? How was Aileen Wuornos a threat to your community while she was in prison? Execution is not self defense, you're not even in danger, it's just revenge.

And exactly what kind of punishment is death? What happens after you die that's so much worse than living? When you get down to it, the reason the death penalty is around because people are afraid of death.

They are a threat because they live in relative luxury on the public's dime.

When you get down to it, the death penalty is instituted because certain crimes are of such brevity that they demonstrate an individual's ineligibility to reside in an otherwise civil society, which is better off without his/her presence.

[caveBEAR]

There are numerous cases of human rights violations on the part of the US military that shows, though they make not take pleasure, still have no issue with killing innocent people.

Again, I am not arguing on that point; however, to say that the military rarely kills an 'enemy' is either a gross exaggeration or semantics.

[caveBEAR]

That's not self defense, if they're in jail, they arent going to leave and kill more people. If they've been convicted of first degree murder they arent getting out any time soon. After he was arrested, how was John Allen Muhammad a threat to your community? How was Aileen Wuornos a threat to your community while she was in prison? Execution is not self defense, you're not even in danger, it's just revenge.

And exactly what kind of punishment is death? What happens after you die that's so much worse than living? When you get down to it, the reason the death penalty is around because people are afraid of death.

I'm not saying I feel that way. I don't really support the death penalty. However, you made some point that murder is always wrong, you know, except for self-defense, and I want to know why that gets a pass.

And the part about death thats worse than living is the death. Thought that was kind of obvious. No matter what your beliefs, once you die, your time on Earth is done. That's a little worse than living.

[Praetor]

You're using that stat to your advantage...there are more African-Americans in prison, and more African-Americans on Death Row, so consequently, there will be more African-Americans executed. Now you can open the Pandora's box about racial bias and social inequalities and how that may put more African-Americans in our prison system, but to use that stat is slightly misleading
That is a pandora's box that I would like to open.

[sarahsarahsarah]

They are a threat because they live in relative luxury on the public's dime.

When you get down to it, the death penalty is instituted because certain crimes are of such brevity that they demonstrate an individual's ineligibility to reside in an otherwise civil society, which is better off without his/her presence.

this. if you commit a crime that is so severe, you don't deserve to exist in our society and should be penalized severly for what you've done.

[GeeBee]

this. if you commit a crime that is so severe, you don't deserve to exist in our society and should be penalized severly for what you've done.

In my view, it's not even so much a "penalty" or "punishment" issue. It's a simple removal of a pervasive influence on humanity. I'll be the first to concur that it's not a deterrent to crime.

[zion the lion]

They are a threat because they live in relative luxury on the public's dime.

When you get down to it, the death penalty is instituted because certain crimes are of such brevity that they demonstrate an individual's ineligibility to reside in an otherwise civil society, which is better off without his/her presence.

That's not an immediate threat, they arent in your house, they dont work with your children, they arent holding a knife to your throat, or even threatening you. I dont see too many prisons that are relatively luxurious at all. They're over crowded, violent, miserable places. No maximum security prison is fun to be at, even the people who arent in there for committing a crime dont have full freedom.


I'm not saying I feel that way. I don't really support the death penalty. However, you made some point that murder is always wrong, you know, except for self-defense, and I want to know why that gets a pass.

And the part about death thats worse than living is the death. Thought that was kind of obvious. No matter what your beliefs, once you die, your time on Earth is done. That's a little worse than living.

Self defense actually solves something. I've had to use self defense, and in that moment I'm not thinking "I have to this person" I'm thinking "I have to get away before they kill me, I have to slow them down". Its not that in self defense you're killing someone because you're sadistic, you're not doing it because your boss told you to...you're doing it because there's an immediate threat to you and maybe the people around you. When I've grabbed a knife or a gun its not because I wanted to kill the person, it's because I wanted them to know that I could defend myself, and I wanted to scare them. If I was ever in a situation where I pull the trigger, it's because I'm legitimately scared that they are going to kill not only me, but the people I love, and even then my motive isnt to take away their life. That's why self defense isnt as wrong in my opinion.

How is that worse than living? If someone is a serial killer, it is because they are psychologically flawed. How wonderful is living if you're constantly tormented by the fact that your brain has betrayed you? I realize that there are people who are afraid of what's after death, and about the fact that the world is going to go on without them (meaning that they have to realize they arent as important as they thought they were), but you have to understand that there are some of us who think of death as a gift, and as a way to end their suffering.

[GeeBee]

That's not an immediate threat, they arent in your house, they dont work with your children, they arent holding a knife to your throat, or even threatening you. I dont see too many prisons that are relatively luxurious at all. They're over crowded, violent, miserable places. No maximum security prison is fun to be at, even the people who arent in there for committing a crime dont have full freedom.
a) The collective price of housing prisoners IS an immediate threat to municipalities, state, and federal prisons.
b) Take yourself a tour of any prison outside the united states. U.S. prisoners live the life of luxury compared to their counterparts in most parts of the world. They're getting room, board, healthcare, gym, and cable television on your dime. That's not prison. That's a Motel 6.

Try again.

[caveBEAR]

Self defense actually solves something. I've had to use self defense, and in that moment I'm not thinking "I have to this person" I'm thinking "I have to get away before they kill me, I have to slow them down". Its not that in self defense you're killing someone because you're sadistic, you're not doing it because your boss told you to...you're doing it because there's an immediate threat to you and maybe the people around you. When I've grabbed a knife or a gun its not because I wanted to kill the person, it's because I wanted them to know that I could defend myself, and I wanted to scare them. If I was ever in a situation where I pull the trigger, it's because I'm legitimately scared that they are going to kill not only me, but the people I love, and even then my motive isnt to take away their life. That's why self defense isnt as wrong in my opinion.

You still haven't convinced me that this is any different than murder. I understand the reasoning behind self-defense the same way I understand the reasoning behind a crime of passion murder and the reasoning behind a tortured serial killer murdering. However, if murder is so wrong that we shouldn't even murder a murderer, why don't you just let them kill you?

How is that worse than living? If someone is a serial killer, it is because they are psychologically flawed. How wonderful is living if you're constantly tormented by the fact that your brain has betrayed you? I realize that there are people who are afraid of what's after death, and about the fact that the world is going to go on without them (meaning that they have to realize they arent as important as they thought they were), but you have to understand that there are some of us who think of death as a gift, and as a way to end their suffering.

This doesn't make much sense at all. Maybe it's your phrasing. Oh, and death as a gift? That's cool for you and the minority who feel that way, but most people aren't exactly too excited about the whole dying thing.

[zion the lion]

a) The collective price of housing prisoners IS an immediate threat to municipalities, state, and federal prisons.
b) Take yourself a tour of any prison outside the united states. U.S. prisoners live the life of luxury compared to their counterparts in most parts of the world. They're getting room, board, healthcare, gym, and cable television on your dime. That's not prison. That's a Motel 6.

Try again.

That's not an immediate threat. Because my money is paying for the cage they live in, they deserve to die? So every petty thief and drug dealer should be put up for lethal injection too? And every kid who's on WIC deserves to be strapped in to the electric chair because my money is paying to feed them? You're paying to keep those criminals confined to a secluded area where they are being punished, if you have such a problem with that, then why dont you just go in and release them all?

Have you ever even been to a prison before? They arent spas.

You still haven't convinced me that this is any different than murder. I understand the reasoning behind self-defense the same way I understand the reasoning behind a crime of passion murder and the reasoning behind a tortured serial killer murdering. However, if murder is so wrong that we shouldn't even murder a murderer, why don't you just let them kill you?

If you understand the reasoning behind self defense, then you would know that it's not revenge like execution is. And that execution isnt even solving an immediate threat. I excluded self defense because I assumed that if I didnt, someone would pick up on the fact and pick at that one point instead of looking at my post completely.

This doesn't make much sense at all. Maybe it's your phrasing. Oh, and death as a gift? That's cool for you and the minority who feel that way, but most people aren't exactly too excited about the whole dying thing.

How do you know? Death isnt a big deal in quite a few religions, sure there's mourning the loss of someone you love, but death isnt a scary or horrible thing to a lot of people. I probably didnt word it right, but then again, I never understood what made death so horrible in the first place. I get that people are afraid of what they dont know, but it's not a punishment, you're getting out of feeling guilt for 45 more years, you're getting out of being isolated from the rest of civilization for how ever much longer. It's such an easy way out.

[caveBEAR]

That's not an immediate threat. Because my money is paying for the cage they live in, they deserve to die? So every petty thief and drug dealer should be put up for lethal injection too? And every kid who's on WIC deserves to be strapped in to the electric chair because my money is paying to feed them? You're paying to keep those criminals confined to a secluded area where they are being punished, if you have such a problem with that, then why dont you just go in and release them all?

Have you ever even been to a prison before? They arent spas.

Not to put words in Geebee's mouth, but you are making some ridiculous leaps in logic there.

[zion the lion]

Not to put words in Geebee's mouth, but you are making some ridiculous leaps in logic there.

I was taking a page from his own book because calling a maximum security prison luxurious, and saying the criminals are an immediate threat because a small amount of your paycheck actually goes to maintaining the prison, are both rather big leaps.

[vodyanoj]

I'm not saying I feel that way. I don't really support the death penalty. However, you made some point that murder is always wrong, you know, except for self-defense, and I want to know why that gets a pass.

And the part about death thats worse than living is the death. Thought that was kind of obvious. No matter what your beliefs, once you die, your time on Earth is done. That's a little worse than living.

There is a difference between a "necessary" action and a "right" (read, morally right) one, which most people are totally unaware of, it seems. They are only identical in purely utilitarian ethics. To me killing is *always* wrong, but sometimes necessary (i.e., self-defense, or attempting to stop a crime in progress, such as rape). I would argue that it is never necessary after the criminal has been caught and incarcerated.

What's more, there is a definite benefit to the lack of death penalty: those countries that do not enforce it have lower crime rates as a rule (obvious exceptions such as Scotland only confirm the rule...:))

[caveBEAR]

a) The collective price of housing prisoners IS an immediate threat to municipalities, state, and federal prisons.
b) Take yourself a tour of any prison outside the united states. U.S. prisoners live the life of luxury compared to their counterparts in most parts of the world. They're getting room, board, healthcare, gym, and cable television on your dime. That's not prison. That's a Motel 6.

Try again.

I was taking a page from his own book because calling a maximum security prison luxurious, and saying the criminals are an immediate threat because a small amount of your paycheck actually goes to maintaining the prison, are both rather big leaps.

No. Re-read his post. He said that the collective price is a thread to municipalities, state and federal prisons. As well, he said that they were a luxury compared to the way that people live in most parts of the world.

As he said, try again.

[Machu505]

Never thought I'd find myself on the left of GeeBee.

[vodyanoj]

I was taking a page from his own book because calling a maximum security prison luxurious, and saying the criminals are an immediate threat because a small amount of your paycheck actually goes to maintaining the prison, are both rather big leaps.

Indeed; don't forget that most European nations consider US prison conditions to be barbarous (well, not as barbarous as those of Turkey or Mexico, but bad enough). Even been in jail in Austria? Or, even better, Sweden? :-)

[zion the lion]

No. Re-read his post. He said that the collective price is a thread to municipalities, state and federal prisons. As well, he said that they were a luxury compared to the way that people live in most parts of the world.

As he said, try again.

Which he was trying to find ways that Aileen Wuornos was a direct threat to his and your communities after she was arrested. Its not a threat in the least bit, but instead both you and him are nitpicking at this when really saving money isnt a reason to kill someone at all.

Yes and people who live in poverty here are living in luxury compared to the people living in Darfur, but does that mean they arent in poverty? No, not really. Again, have you ever even been to a prison? They arent luxurious in any way. They're over crowded, they're horrible bleak places. Nothing about them screams motel 6. The standards of living are different from country to country, what we consider inhumane, they consider normal.

[vodyanoj]

No. Re-read his post. He said that the collective price is a thread to municipalities, state and federal prisons. As well, he said that they were a luxury compared to the way that people live in most parts of the world.

As he said, try again.

That is due to the number of people incarcerated in this country. The rate f incarceration in the USA is the highest in the world (above such bastions of freedom like Iran and China!). Most of the people behind bars do not deserve to be there. One thrd of the prison population in USA are there for drug-related offenses, mostly possession. Change the laws and they go free.

Death row inmates and "lifers" are a minute portion of prisoners, and I for one have no problem supporting them. In fact, because of the options open to death row inmates, they end up costing us a lot more than they would have living their lives out in maximum security.

[caveBEAR]

Which he was trying to find ways that Aileen Wuornos was a direct threat to his and your communities after she was arrested. Its not a threat in the least bit, but instead both you and him are nitpicking at this when really saving money isnt a reason to kill someone at all.

Yes and people who live in poverty here are living in luxury compared to the people living in Darfur, but does that mean they arent in poverty? No, not really. Again, have you ever even been to a prison? They arent luxurious in any way. They're over crowded, they're horrible bleak places. Nothing about them screams motel 6. The standards of living are different from country to country, what we consider inhumane, they consider normal.

Not my opinion, it's Geebee's, so I don't care. However, he seemed to be pointing to the cost as being a problem for the prisons, not people. Again, not my opinion, don't care.

That is due to the number of people incarcerated in this country. The rate f incarceration in the USA is the highest in the world (above such bastions of freedom like Iran and China!). Most of the people behind bars do not deserve to be there. One thrd of the prison population in USA are there for drug-related offenses, mostly possession. Change the laws and they go free.

Death row inmates and "lifers" are a minute portion of prisoners, and I for one have no problem supporting them. In fact, because of the options open to death row inmates, they end up costing us a lot more than they would have living their lives out in maximum security.

Wasn't my opinion, just the messenger, but I do agree that the drug laws need to be overhauled, which would definitely lessen the load on prisons.

[vodyanoj]

Not my opinion, it's Geebee's, so I don't care. However, he seemed to be pointing to the cost as being a problem for the prisons, not people. Again, not my opinion, don't care.



Wasn't my opinion, just the messenger, but I do agree that the drug laws need to be overhauled, which would definitely lessen the load on prisons.

As I have said: try Sweden. Crime rate is low, and prisons are infinitely more comfortable than those here. No death penalty, I don't believe there is life without parole either. Of course, the culture is relatively homogeneous, so that removes many of the reasons for violent crime. Society is rather socialistic, as well, which tends to reduce property crime. Drug laws are lax, which also has an effect...

[Machu505]

Read as: Sweden is perfect and all the women are beautiful. The end.

[joe has a cat]

Drug laws are lax, which also has an effect...

Bullshit. Sweden has zero tolerance for drugs.

[vodyanoj]

Bullshit. Sweden has zero tolerance for drugs.

The difference is between the laws and the way they are enforced. Much less people end up in prison in Sweden for possession than in the USA. A coincidence? A result of lower rate of drug use? Be my guest...

EDIT: From the mouth of the beast..."Sweden’ s vision, when it comes to drug policy, has not changed since the early 1980s: it is that of a drug-free society. However, one of the stated goals of Swedish drug policy is to rehabilitate the user rather than to punish them by way of the criminal justice system."

And therein lies the difference.

[saysmydoctor]

Again, I am not arguing on that point; however, to say that the military rarely kills an 'enemy' is either a gross exaggeration or semantics.
It's neither. It's bringing up a conceptual flaw in the presentation of something as an enemy.

[Dan1234]

There's no doubt in my mind that innocent people have been executed. There's no doubt in my mind that if we continue with the death penalty being legal, that more innocent people will be executed.


That being said, as much as i want to support the death penalty, i just can't.

[vodyanoj]

Read as: Sweden is perfect and all the women are beautiful. The end.

Oh, I don't know. I am ridiculously fond of Sweden and Finland both, but lately have been developing a new-found love for Spain, Catalonia in particular.

[vodyanoj]

There's no doubt in my mind that innocent people have been executed. There's no doubt in my mind that if we continue with the death penalty being legal, that more innocent people will be executed.


That being said, as much as i want to support the death penalty, i just can't.

This too.

[crackedthesky]

I support it. If they aren't going to have a chance to get out with the life without parole, why give them more time to a) escape b) kill again in prison c) waste more space in our already crowded prisons? Just get it over with and kill the criminal in whatever way is deemed most humane or whatever.

You forgot D. Repent


It seems like the whole damn world has forgotten that prisons aren't set up as punishment, they're supposed to be correctional facilities. By killing someone, you're just taking away their chance of ever being corrected.

The idea that we would rather kill someone to "get them out of the way" than to help them is inhumane, it's barbaric, it's disgusting. And there isn't a person on the planet who has the right to do that.

[HYGz]

I just want to know why, if there's hard evidence supporting the fact that one person killed another, that said killer shouldn't be executed? I mean...why should the money that gets taxed from my paycheck be spent on keeping a murderer fed, alive, educated, and left in a place where they are not required to work or do anything but sleep for the rest of their lives?

If someone kills another person, knowing the death penalty could very well be the final sentence, then why would they kill someone? That's the logic behind the law I'm guessing. And if they do kill someone knowing they will die as well, seems to me they don't value their own life enough to not commit such a crime...so why should I care? Inject him.

[The Summer Ends]

You forgot D. Repent


It seems like the whole damn world has forgotten that prisons aren't set up as punishment, they're supposed to be correctional facilities. By killing someone, you're just taking away their chance of ever being corrected.

The idea that we would rather kill someone to "get them out of the way" than to help them is inhumane, it's barbaric, it's disgusting. And there isn't a person on the planet who has the right to do that.
If you're going to putting someone away for life without parole, what's the point of correctional facilities? "Oh, you're good to go into society again OH WAIT LOL NEVER MIND HAHAHA GET BACK IN YOUR CELL." If you get life without parole or the the death penalty, prison is punishment. There's no point in trying to correct the prisoner, as there's no outlet for them to practice their newfound behavior. It doesn't matter how bad you feel about doing something that was bad enough to get you the death penalty or life without parole, the fact is you did it (crime, time, etc.).

[crackedthesky]

If you're going to putting someone away for life without parole, what's the point of correctional facilities? "Oh, you're good to go into society again OH WAIT LOL NEVER MIND HAHAHA GET BACK IN YOUR CELL." If you get life without parole or the the death penalty, prison is punishment. There's no point in trying to correct the prisoner, as there's no outlet for them to practice their newfound behavior. It doesn't matter how bad you feel about doing something that was bad enough to get you the death penalty or life without parole, the fact is you did it (crime, time, etc.).

Good point. But then, I never said I was for putting someone away for life without parole, was I?
And if memory serves, you can still file an appeal if you get life without parole.

[zion the lion]

I just want to know why, if there's hard evidence supporting the fact that one person killed another, that said killer shouldn't be executed? I mean...why should the money that gets taxed from my paycheck be spent on keeping a murderer fed, alive, educated, and left in a place where they are not required to work or do anything but sleep for the rest of their lives?

If someone kills another person, knowing the death penalty could very well be the final sentence, then why would they kill someone? That's the logic behind the law I'm guessing. And if they do kill someone knowing they will die as well, seems to me they don't value their own life enough to not commit such a crime...so why should I care? Inject him.

You work in prison...there's no maid service there. There are janitors, cooks, and all sorts of jobs in prison. They dont sit around all day like I do, watching sesame street with a 2 year old.

Jail isnt like a zoo, they arent laying around like those lazy lions and bears. It's not a vacation.

and that last point is just stupid. Look at serial killers, do you think they're thinking about the consequences? No. I'm sure they do value their lives.

[crackedthesky]

I just want to know why, if there's hard evidence supporting the fact that one person killed another, that said killer shouldn't be executed? I mean...why should the money that gets taxed from my paycheck be spent on keeping a murderer fed, alive, educated, and left in a place where they are not required to work or do anything but sleep for the rest of their lives?

If someone kills another person, knowing the death penalty could very well be the final sentence, then why would they kill someone? That's the logic behind the law I'm guessing. And if they do kill someone knowing they will die as well, seems to me they don't value their own life enough to not commit such a crime...so why should I care? Inject him.

First off, it costs more to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for life.

Second, there are very, VERY few criminals who don't regret what they've done. There are quite a few who have mental trauma or even disabilities, and that's why they do it. Look at David Berkowitz AKA Son of Sam. When the police finally caught him, he was THANKING them. When he was put up for parole, he wrote a letter to the governor asking him to veto it at all costs because he felt unfit to be a part of society.

Also, you do have to work in prison... Maybe not on death row, but I don't know that off of the top of my head.

Furthermore, "hard evidence" is often not quite as "hard" as you might think. Look at the "hard evidence" that put the West Memphis Three away: The confession of a mentally retarded guy, and they wore black clothes and read Stephen King books.

[HYGz]

You work in prison...there's no maid service there. There are janitors, cooks, and all sorts of jobs in prison. They dont sit around all day like I do, watching sesame street with a 2 year old.

Jail isnt like a zoo, they arent laying around like those lazy lions and bears. It's not a vacation.

Right but...let's just leave him in there so he can kill some dude that talks shit about him in the yard? Makes sense I guess. Let them all kill each other.

Prisoners can also obtain cell phones, candy, marijuana, ect. in jail through bribing guards and things of that nature. So really...if they're working, watching tv, getting fed, getting high with their bros, and playing b-ball...really what punishment are they serving?

I dunno how it's so controversial...kill someone, get killed. As "barbaric" as that sounds, it's "barbaric" to kill someone in the first place.

[HYGz]

]First off, it costs more to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for life.
[/B]
Second, there are very, VERY few criminals who don't regret what they've done. There are quite a few who have mental trauma or even disabilities, and that's why they do it. Look at David Berkowitz AKA Son of Sam. When the police finally caught him, he was THANKING them. When he was put up for parole, he wrote a letter to the governor asking him to veto it at all costs because he felt unfit to be a part of society.

Also, you do have to work in prison... Maybe not on death row, but I don't know that off of the top of my head.

Furthermore, "hard evidence" is often not quite as "hard" as you might think. Look at the "hard evidence" that put the West Memphis Three away: The confession of a mentally retarded guy, and they wore black clothes and read Stephen King books.

See but I'm okay with my tax dollars going towards executing a murderer rather than keeping him alive. If they have a mental disorder, that's another issue entirely. But say some gangbanger decides he's gonna shoot some dude over a quarter sack of chronic? Does that guy really contribute to society in the first place? Why let him live for the rest of his life?

I agree though that there are innocent people on death row, however. Which is sad, yeah. But how many people that are in prison claim they didn't do it?

[crackedthesky]

Right but...let's just leave him in there so he can kill some dude that talks shit about him in the yard? Makes sense I guess. Let them all kill each other.

Prisoners can also obtain cell phones, candy, marijuana, ect. in jail through bribing guards and things of that nature. So really...if they're working, watching tv, getting fed, getting high with their bros, and playing b-ball...really what punishment are they serving?

I dunno how it's so controversial...kill someone, get killed. As "barbaric" as that sounds, it's "barbaric" to kill someone in the first place.

See but I'm okay with my tax dollars going towards executing a murderer rather than keeping him alive. If they have a mental disorder, that's another issue entirely. But say some gangbanger decides he's gonna shoot some dude over a quarter sack of chronic? Does that guy really contribute to society in the first place? Why let him live for the rest of his life?

I agree though that there are innocent people on death row, however. Which is sad, yeah. But how many people that are in prison claim they didn't do it?

What's barbaric about it is that you are, in essence, telling someone that it was wrong for them to kill, and to prove it, you're going to kill them.
What makes it worse is that we have done it to people who never killed anybody.

[zion the lion]

Right but...let's just leave him in there so he can kill some dude that talks shit about him in the yard? Makes sense I guess. Let them all kill each other.

Prisoners can also obtain cell phones, candy, marijuana, ect. in jail through bribing guards and things of that nature. So really...if they're working, watching tv, getting fed, getting high with their bros, and playing b-ball...really what punishment are they serving?

I dunno how it's so controversial...kill someone, get killed. As "barbaric" as that sounds, it's "barbaric" to kill someone in the first place.

Do you really think they they're just handed pocket knives and told to kill each other in "the yard" the second they get sentenced?

By your previous post, I know that you havent been to prison, visited one, or even known someone who was in one. How many hours a day do you think they get to watch television? how many hours a day do you think they can play "b-ball" with their bros while getting high. How many guards are out there honestly getting bribed?

Stop watching Law and order or CSI and look at a real life prison before trying to spew that bullshit as knowledge. Seriously first they dont have to work, and then they just get high and eat candy while playing basket ball in prison? What's next, they can go to prom and take joy rides with the paddy wagons in the maximum security prisons too?

[vodyanoj]

Right but...let's just leave him in there so he can kill some dude that talks shit about him in the yard? Makes sense I guess. Let them all kill each other.

Prisoners can also obtain cell phones, candy, marijuana, ect. in jail through bribing guards and things of that nature. So really...if they're working, watching tv, getting fed, getting high with their bros, and playing b-ball...really what punishment are they serving?

I dunno how it's so controversial...kill someone, get killed. As "barbaric" as that sounds, it's "barbaric" to kill someone in the first place.

An eye for an eye? Good way towards a blind society. What are you going to do with the executioners? Again, all the statistics support the view that death penalty is no deterrent and in fact, is strongly correlated with higher incidence of violent crime.

[zion the lion]

See but I'm okay with my tax dollars going towards executing a murderer rather than keeping him alive. If they have a mental disorder, that's another issue entirely. But say some gangbanger decides he's gonna shoot some dude over a quarter sack of chronic? Does that guy really contribute to society in the first place? Why let him live for the rest of his life?

I agree though that there are innocent people on death row, however. Which is sad, yeah. But how many people that are in prison claim they didn't do it?

And they dont put you on death row for killing one person. Again, stop the Law and order 58 hour marathon and talk to some people who have been in jail before.

[HYGz]

What's barbaric about it is that you are, in essence, telling someone that it was wrong for them to kill, and to prove it, you're going to kill them.

Exactly what I'm saying. What's wrong with that? Barbarianism in return for barbarianism. Take for instance the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs). You're telling me that these people who brutally kill people and film it for fun should be sent to prison without parole? Absolutely not. They know what they did. They filmed it. They thought it was funny. Why am I going to pay money to keep them alive in a cell? I'd rather pay money to have to killed. And have someone film it.

What makes it worse is that we have done it to people who never killed anybody.

I agree with this statement. And that all bounces back on our police, investigators, prosecutors, and judges who -- essentially by executing innocent people -- should be executed themselves. See my point? It would never happen. But it's the same concept.

[crackedthesky]

An eye for an eye? Good way towards a blind society. What are you going to do with the executioners? Again, all the statistics support the view that death penalty is no deterrent and in fact, is strongly correlated with higher incidence of violent crime.

This.

Exactly what I'm saying. What's wrong with that? Barbarianism in return for barbarianism. Take for instance the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs). You're telling me that these people who brutally kill people and film it for fun should be sent to prison without parole? Absolutely not. They know what they did. They filmed it. They thought it was funny. Why am I going to pay money to keep them alive in a cell? I'd rather pay money to have to killed. And have someone film it.



I agree with this statement. And that all bounces back on our police, investigators, prosecutors, and judges who -- essentially by executing innocent people -- should be executed themselves. See my point? It would never happen. But it's the same concept.

1. No, that's not exactly what you're saying. You're saying it's not okay to kill people, but it's okay to kill people. If you don't see a problem with that, well...
2. I don't like paying for us to go to war for oil, I don't like paying for us to duct tape a crumbling banking system, and I don't like paying for us to put people to death. I especially don't like paying for us to put innocent people to death.
3. If you want to say we should do to criminals what they've done, that means we must now appoint someone to steal from every theif, someone to rape every rapist, someone to set fire to every arsonist, etc.
4. If even one person, ONE, who is innocent is put to death, then we've committed an atrocity so great, we need to change the system. And, by your very own standards, we must kill whomever it was who put that innocent person to death. We must also kill every executioner, because killing is wrong. We must kill every American soldier, because killing is wrong. We must kill every game hunter, because killing is wrong... etc.

[HYGz]

And they dont put you on death row for killing one person. Again, stop the Law and order 58 hour marathon and talk to some people who have been in jail before.

I actually spent 30 days in a county jail for possesion of marijuana. Stupid crime yes. But truth be told, I got to watch T.V. from the hours of 6 am to 11 pm. I had to make sure my cell block was clean every day, we got rec time in the "yard" once a week, we had commisary, we were required to wear uniforms that were laundered once a week, I got to play cards and board games all day, had books to read, and if I wanted to sleep all day I could. I could also opt to be a trustee and work for the jail to earn time. So please spare me the talk to someone who has been to jail before.

Granted it's not a state penatentary, but guys I was in the pod with had been before, and I had AMPLE amount of time to talk to them. Also...the murders that were being held in the same jail in the "south side" blocks, were being treated the same. So what lesson were they learning?

[HYGz]

This.



1. No, that's not exactly what you're saying. You're saying it's not okay to kill people, but it's okay to kill people. If you don't see a problem with that, well...
2. I don't like paying for us to go to war for oil, I don't like paying for us to duct tape a crumbling banking system, and I don't like paying for us to put people to death. I especially don't like paying for us to put innocent people to death.
3. If you want to say we should do to criminals what they've done, that means we must now appoint someone to steal from every theif, someone to rape every rapist, someone to set fire to every arsonist, etc.
4. If even one person, ONE, who is innocent is put to death, then we've committed an atrocity so great, we need to change the system. And, by your very own standards, we must kill whomever it was who put that innocent person to death. We must also kill every executioner, because killing is wrong. We must kill every American soldier, because killing is wrong. We must kill every game hunter, because killing is wrong... etc.

I also said such things would never happen. Especially in this society. It's too unrealistic. But say you were married, and someone killed your wife, and they apprehended they person that did it. What would you want to happen to said killer?

[crackedthesky]

I actually spent 30 days in a county jail for possesion of marijuana. Stupid crime yes. But truth be told, I got to watch T.V. from the hours of 6 am to 11 pm. I had to make sure my cell block was clean every day, we got rec time in the "yard" once a week, we had commisary, we were required to wear uniforms that were laundered once a week, I got to play cards and board games all day, had books to read, and if I wanted to sleep all day I could. I could also opt to be a trustee and work for the jail to earn time. So please spare me the talk to someone who has been to jail before.

Granted it's not a state penatentary, but guys I was in the pod with had been before, and I had AMPLE amount of time to talk to them. Also...the murders that were being held in the same jail in the "south side" blocks, were being treated the same. So what lesson were they learning?

Yeah, because everything everyone says at county jail is 100% true, and definitely not boasting so they don't get ass raped in the shower.

I also said such things would never happen. Especially in this society. It's too unrealistic. But say you were married, and someone killed your wife, and they apprehended they person that did it. What would you want to happen to said killer?

It is unrealistic. Does that warrant taking a life? Would you look someone in the eyes, someone who may not even be guilty, someone who had truly repented, and tell them "sorry, we just don't have the time to deal with you, you get to die."

If I was married, and someone killed my wife, and they were apprehended, I wouldn't want them to die. More likely, I'd visit them in prison. Every single day. And maybe one day, the two of us could reconcile. And maybe not. But killing him wouldn't bring my wife back, nor would it make me feel better.

[zion the lion]

I actually spent 30 days in a county jail for possesion of marijuana. Stupid crime yes. But truth be told, I got to watch T.V. from the hours of 6 am to 11 pm. I had to make sure my cell block was clean every day, we got rec time in the "yard" once a week, we had commisary, we were required to wear uniforms that were laundered once a week, I got to play cards and board games all day, had books to read, and if I wanted to sleep all day I could. I could also opt to be a trustee and work for the jail to earn time. So please spare me the talk to someone who has been to jail before.

Granted it's not a state penatentary, but guys I was in the pod with had been before, and I had AMPLE amount of time to talk to them. Also...the murders that were being held in the same jail in the "south side" blocks, were being treated the same. So what lesson were they learning?

Oh...that's right, Barney Fife takes care of the death row people as well as that two cell thing in Mayberry, because they're both clearly the same thing. I should have known better.

I think you should pay attention to the things I say in my posts before you try to bring up other people's points when trying to prove me wrong. I said nothing about how barbaric it was, and I never said anything about the lessons learned while playing that harmonica while Opie and Andy go fishin'. I said that the death penalty was wrong, because it doesnt solve anything. It doesnt even serve the purpose of revenge which is what it's supposed to do, because it's usually anticlimactic.

The one thing that I have noticed in your posts though is how you seem to want your money going to the filming of murderers being executed for killing people and filming it. So what makes you so different from them?

[HYGz]

Yeah, because everything everyone says at county jail is 100% true, and definitely not boasting so they don't get ass raped in the shower.



It is unrealistic. Does that warrant taking a life? Would you look someone in the eyes, someone who may not even be guilty, someone who had truly repented, and tell them "sorry, we just don't have the time to deal with you, you get to die."

If I was married, and someone killed my wife, and they were apprehended, I wouldn't want them to die. More likely, I'd visit them in prison. Every single day. And maybe one day, the two of us could reconcile. And maybe not. But killing him wouldn't bring my wife back, nor would it make me feel better.

Gotta read the whole post man. Murders being held in the same jail, were merely treated the same way I was. And think about it...I did whatever I want, disregarded the law and abused my freedom -- so the law took my freedom away. I still can't leave my own town.

And you're a better man than I. Which I guess is the issue at hand then. You would visit him in jail every day, and not feel as if your wife's death wasn't in vein if they killed him. Me personally, would love nothing more than to see the killer himself be killed.

So I guess then, what would you think about the law leaving the punishment for said killer to the victim's family? If someone takes a life, then shouldn't that person be required to face the family of the person's life they took and they family get to determine what his final fate will be?

[The Summer Ends]

Good point. But then, I never said I was for putting someone away for life without parole, was I?
And if memory serves, you can still file an appeal if you get life without parole.
That could be true, I'm not well-versed on the justice system. I did serve jury duty once though.

[crackedthesky]

Gotta read the whole post man. Murders being held in the same jail, were merely treated the same way I was. And think about it...I did whatever I want, disregarded the law and abused my freedom -- so the law took my freedom away. I still can't leave my own town.

And you're a better man than I. Which I guess is the issue at hand then. You would visit him in jail every day, and not feel as if your wife's death wasn't in vein if they killed him. Me personally, would love nothing more than to see the killer himself be killed.

So I guess then, what would you think about the law leaving the punishment for said killer to the victim's family? If someone takes a life, then shouldn't that person be required to face the family of the person's life they took and they family get to determine what his final fate will be?

They don't keep murderers in county jail cells. And if they do, it's because they haven't been to trial yet, so you can't even confirm they've killed anyone.

Leaving it up to the family is even more wrong, because now, you're allowing someone to personally decide whether someone gets to live or die, and are in essence committing the exact same crime.

I'd still love for you to explain to me, though, how you feel it's not okay to kill people, but it's okay to kill people. I'm still scratching my head over that one.

[HYGz]

Oh...that's right, Barney Fife takes care of the death row people as well as that two cell thing in Mayberry, because they're both clearly the same thing. I should have known better.

I think you should pay attention to the things I say in my posts before you try to bring up other people's points when trying to prove me wrong. I said nothing about how barbaric it was, and I never said anything about the lessons learned while playing that harmonica while Opie and Andy go fishin'. I said that the death penalty was wrong, because it doesnt solve anything. It doesnt even serve the purpose of revenge which is what it's supposed to do, because it's usually anticlimactic.

The one thing that I have noticed in your posts though is how you seem to want your money going to the filming of murderers being executed for killing people and filming it. So what makes you so different from them?

I dont kill people. Also, you should read my posts more thoroughly as well. Cause yeah, a county jail retaining 3,000 inmates is the same thing as a 50's television sitcom jail? I belittled myself already for the statement...so I don't see what you're doing there.

And if the death penalty doesn't serve ANY purpose, then what punishment does?

P.S. Is Alaska really that bad?

[HYGz]

They don't keep murderers in county jail cells. And if they do, it's because they haven't been to trial yet, so you can't even confirm they've killed anyone.

Leaving it up to the family is even more wrong, because now, you're allowing someone to personally decide whether someone gets to live or die, and are in essence committing the exact same crime.

I'd still love for you to explain to me, though, how you feel it's not okay to kill people, but it's okay to kill people. I'm still scratching my head over that one.

It's not okay to kill people...however if you do...then what? Oh, sit in prison for the rest of your life? Okay cool. Problem solved? I guess.

But for instance...a thief steals to make money (i.e. steal a T.V. or car to sell it illegally). So when they are arrested and released from jail...the law takes all their money from them (by them being required to pay court costs, probation fees, UA fees, ect). If they don't pay the money, they don't cherish their freedom, so the law takes them back to jail where their freedom goes away.

So ... if someone who steals money gets their money taken from them, then...why wouldn't someone who takes their life get their life taken from them?

[zion the lion]

I dont kill people. Also, you should read my posts more thoroughly as well. Cause yeah, a county jail retaining 3,000 inmates is the same thing as a 50's television sitcom jail? I belittled myself already for the statement...so I don't see what you're doing there.

And if the death penalty doesn't serve ANY purpose, then what punishment does.

P.S. Is Alaska really that bad?

What mentally retarded town allows murders to be put in a county jail?

I'd like for you to answer what makes you so different from those who murder or film a murder, if you want to let your money go to both the murder and the filming of it too?

What makes you think death is a punishment at all? I've never viewed death as a punishment, and I never will. But I think a good punishment for someone who is without a doubt a serial killer who did it all with a good mind, is that he/she should be placed in solitary for the majority of their sentence.

What do you mean?

[crackedthesky]

It's not okay to kill people...however if you do...then what? Oh, sit in prison for the rest of your life? Okay cool. Problem solved? I guess.

But for instance...a thief steals to make money (i.e. steal a T.V. or car to sell it illegally). So when they are arrested and released from jail...the law takes all their money from them (by them being required to pay court costs, probation fees, UA fees, ect). If they don't pay the money, they don't cherish their freedom, so the law takes them back to jail where their freedom goes away.

So ... if someone who steals money gets their money taken from them, then...why wouldn't someone who takes their life get their life taken from them?

But you support the death penalty, so you DO believe it's okay to kill people.

The court isn't taking their money for the fun of it, though. And you don't HAVE to pay for a lawyer, the court can appoint you one, or you can defend yourself. That's the difference. That was a horrible analogy, and even if it was true, wouldn't have proven your point.

[HYGz]

What mentally retarded town allows murders to be put in a county jail?

I'd like for you to answer what makes you so different from those who murder or film a murder, if you want to let your money go to both the murder and the filming of it too?

What makes you think death is a punishment at all? I've never viewed death as a punishment, and I never will. But I think a good punishment for someone who is without a doubt a serial killer who did it all with a good mind, is that he/she should be placed in solitary for the majority of their sentence.

What do you mean?

1. Williamson County. They keep them in a seprate part of the jail all together. But they do keep them there.
2. That's the best part...I don't choose how my tax money is spent. You could be a murderer too. I'm just saying if they were going to spend it on keeping a murderer alive or executing him, then I'm okay with the latter. I don't get how someone who is okay with the death penalty is comparatively on the same level as someone who actually kills people. And if they are then, so are the ones who are against it since those people also don't choose how their tax money is spent.
3. I agree with solitary for a major part of their sentence. Sadly, it doesn't work like that.
4. You're extremely abrasive.

[HYGz]

But you support the death penalty, so you DO believe it's okay to kill people.

The court isn't taking their money for the fun of it, though. And you don't HAVE to pay for a lawyer, the court can appoint you one, or you can defend yourself. That's the difference. That was a horrible analogy, and even if it was true, wouldn't have proven your point.

Correct. They are taking it because that person broke the law. Whether you get a lawyer or not, you still owe the court system money. Most B&E's (Breaking and Entering) or Theft of over $500 cases get put on probation anyways...which also costs the defendant money. So not SUCH a terrible analogy. And if that didn't prove my point, then why aren't you writing your congressman? Obviously, you have a better suggestion as to how to handle homicide cases.

Also what about Motorized Homicide due to Driving Under The Influence? Should those people only have to serve 25 years? I mean they killed somebody...what should be done with them? What's not to stop them from having a drink the second they get out of jail, and getting behind the wheel of a car?

[zion the lion]

1. Williamson County. They keep them in a seprate part of the jail all together. But they do keep them there.
2. That's the best part...I don't choose how my tax money is spent. You could be a murderer too. I'm just saying if they were going to spend it on keeping a murderer alive or executing him, then I'm okay with the latter. I don't get how someone who is okay with the death penalty is comparatively on the same level as someone who actually kills people. And if they are then, so are the ones who are against it since those people also don't choose how their tax money is spent.
3. I agree with solitary for a major part of their sentence. Sadly, it doesn't work like that.
4. You're extremely abrasive.

Why doesnt it work like that? I dont see how the death penalty works any better.

Are you asking if alaska had any doing in making me a cold person? Only in the fact that it's soil fucked me over. I realized last week how short my life was going to be, and I realized how easily people walk all over the people who make that extra effort to help out...Being abrasive gets me the things I need.

[HYGz]

Why doesnt it work like that? I dont see how the death penalty works any better.

Are you asking if alaska had any doing in making me a cold person? Only in the fact that it's soil fucked me over. I realized last week how short my life was going to be, and I realized how easily people walk all over the people who make that extra effort to help out...Being abrasive gets me the things I need.

Because only the maniacs get stuck in solitary. The straight up thugs off the street who commit homicide are in a populace of their own. It's sad either way.

And that sucks. You should move to Texas. You sound like a bitch. And honestly, if you're a bitch, I probably love you.

[zion the lion]

Because only the maniacs get stuck in solitary. The straight up thugs off the street who commit homicide are in a populace of their own. It's sad either way.

And that sucks. You should move to Texas. You sound like a bitch. And honestly, if you're a bitch, I probably love you.

Solitary is so much better than the death penalty. It's not even as much money spent, if you're sitting around in a room all day, you only need probably 600 calories, which is pretty much a tube of ritz crackers.

I'm a bitch now, I used to be amazingly nice.

[HYGz]

Solitary is so much better than the death penalty. It's not even as much money spent, if you're sitting around in a room all day, you only need probably 600 calories, which is pretty much a tube of ritz crackers.

I'm a bitch now, I used to be amazingly nice.

Now see, if they put a murderer in a room by himself for life and only fed him Ritz crackers every day...I'm all for that. Dude would go completely ballistic, and bash his head on the wall all day every day. That's a fuckin' punishment. Not to mention terribly hilarious.

I'm getting Dogget Lloyd on the phone tomorrow. And sending the thread.

And hi, I'm Travis.

[vodyanoj]

I'm opposed to this under all circumstances. Though slim, there is always a possibility that the person is innocent or could genuinely repent for his or her crimes. It also makes no sense to use murder as a punishment for murder.

Preciesly. And since in real life there is never such a thing as 100% certainty, I rest my case.

[crackedthesky]

Correct. They are taking it because that person broke the law. Whether you get a lawyer or not, you still owe the court system money. Most B&E's (Breaking and Entering) or Theft of over $500 cases get put on probation anyways...which also costs the defendant money. So not SUCH a terrible analogy. And if that didn't prove my point, then why aren't you writing your congressman? Obviously, you have a better suggestion as to how to handle homicide cases.

Also what about Motorized Homicide due to Driving Under The Influence? Should those people only have to serve 25 years? I mean they killed somebody...what should be done with them? What's not to stop them from having a drink the second they get out of jail, and getting behind the wheel of a car?

I'm not even going to address your first paragraph, because it had nothing to do with... anything, really.
Second, you basiclaly just suggested we kill people based on the ASSUMPTION that they're going to kill someone. That might be the dumbest thing you've said, yet.

Now see, if they put a murderer in a room by himself for life and only fed him Ritz crackers every day...I'm all for that. Dude would go completely ballistic, and bash his head on the wall all day every day. That's a fuckin' punishment. Not to mention terribly hilarious.

I'm getting Dogget Lloyd on the phone tomorrow. And sending the thread.

And hi, I'm Travis.

You seem to really want to watch people suffer. Based on your other message, where we can assume someone is going to harm someone, I should have the right to have you put to death just for saying that.


And you still have not answered my question: How is it not okay to kill someone, but still okay to kill someone?

[vodyanoj]

I dont kill people. Also, you should read my posts more thoroughly as well. Cause yeah, a county jail retaining 3,000 inmates is the same thing as a 50's television sitcom jail? I belittled myself already for the statement...so I don't see what you're doing there.

And if the death penalty doesn't serve ANY purpose, then what punishment does?

P.S. Is Alaska really that bad?

Assuming we are talking about punishing people (an idea that went out of style in most "civilized" societies a while ago, replaced by the concept of rehabilitation, but no matter), death penalty is one irreversible punishment. The possibility of executing an innocent person is, all other considerations aside, a conclusive argument against it.

[Jennurna Gray]

Merely supporting the death penalty does not make one a murderer, so your point is bullshit.
Technically, by supporting Death Penalty you are taking part in the death of that person. Just like if you are walking for breast cancer, you are taking part in the Battle Against Breast Cancer. By supporting a presidential candidate, you are helping him get votes. There is no way in hell you would have supported McCain if you were rooting for Obama. Need I give you more examples? The more you partake in the supportion of Death Penalty, the more lives you are taking. Not literally, as they are doing. That's why you're fighting me on this, because you are taking everything LITERALLY, but you can kill without being literal, my dear.

[Jennurna Gray]

I'm not even going to address your first paragraph, because it had nothing to do with... anything, really.
Second, you basiclaly just suggested we kill people based on the ASSUMPTION that they're going to kill someone. That might be the dumbest thing you've said, yet.



You seem to really want to watch people suffer. Based on your other message, where we can assume someone is going to harm someone, I should have the right to have you put to death just for saying that.


And you still have not answered my question: How is it not okay to kill someone, but still okay to kill someone?
Thank you. This is what I'm trying to say here.

[Jennurna Gray]

Correct. They are taking it because that person broke the law. Whether you get a lawyer or not, you still owe the court system money. Most B&E's (Breaking and Entering) or Theft of over $500 cases get put on probation anyways...which also costs the defendant money. So not SUCH a terrible analogy. And if that didn't prove my point, then why aren't you writing your congressman? Obviously, you have a better suggestion as to how to handle homicide cases.

Also what about Motorized Homicide due to Driving Under The Influence? Should those people only have to serve 25 years? I mean they killed somebody...what should be done with them? What's not to stop them from having a drink the second they get out of jail, and getting behind the wheel of a car?
Not wanting to go back...?

[caveBEAR]

If killing puts you up for death penalty, whomever supports death penalty is also part of killing, therefore, whomever supports death penalty should receive death penalty, so on and so forth.
Eventually, we all die out.

Technically, by supporting Death Penalty you are taking part in the death of that person. Just like if you are walking for breast cancer, you are taking part in the Battle Against Breast Cancer. By supporting a presidential candidate, you are helping him get votes. There is no way in hell you would have supported McCain if you were rooting for Obama. Need I give you more examples? The more you partake in the supportion of Death Penalty, the more lives you are taking. Not literally, as they are doing. That's why you're fighting me on this, because you are taking everything LITERALLY, but you can kill without being literal, my dear.

First one sounds pretty literal to me, sweetie. If you walk against breast cancer, you are not actually donating money, doing no research, and (probably) don't have breast cancer. It's about as effective as standing in the road and screaming 'GO AWAY CANCER', and affects the situation as such. The same as supporting the death penalty doesn't make someone a murderer anymore than supporting the Giants will get you a superbowl ring.

I know you think your argument holds water because 'I'm not being literal, my dear', but that doesn't stop it from being bullshit.

[BrennanHickson]

Is it not absurd that the laws which punish murder should, in order to prevent murder, publicly commit murder themselves?
- Cesare Beccaria

[caveBEAR]

If someone keeps someone locked up in a cell in their basement, should we not lock them in jail? That seems to follow the same logic here. To show someone that locking someone up against their will is bad, we lock someone up against their will?

[paper halo]

If someone keeps someone locked up in a cell in their basement, should we not lock them in jail? That seems to follow the same logic here. To show someone that locking someone up against their will is bad, we lock someone up against their will?

Hardly an apt comparison, part of the purpose of prison in modern society is rehabilitation.

[caveBEAR]

Hardly an apt comparison, part of the purpose of prison in modern society is rehabilitation.

Seems like an apt comparison to me. About 50% of the posts in here are someone going 'So, to prove to someone murder is wrong, we murder them?! lolwut?!'

So, by that logic, what's the difference in my scenario.

(I know the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate, but let's not bullshit here, there's little to no rehabilitation in our prison system.)

[HYGz]

I'm not even going to address your first paragraph, because it had nothing to do with... anything, really.
Second, you basiclaly just suggested we kill people based on the ASSUMPTION that they're going to kill someone. That might be the dumbest thing you've said, yet.



You seem to really want to watch people suffer. Based on your other message, where we can assume someone is going to harm someone, I should have the right to have you put to death just for saying that.


And you still have not answered my question: How is it not okay to kill someone, but still okay to kill someone?

Okay well you obviously can't read. So thanks for coming out anyways.

Posts in this thread so far:

50% If you support death penalty you're a murderer!
30% Your post is stupid and makes no sense.
20% Original thought.

[Jennurna Gray]

First one sounds pretty literal to me, sweetie. If you walk against breast cancer, you are not actually donating money, doing no research, and (probably) don't have breast cancer. It's about as effective as standing in the road and screaming 'GO AWAY CANCER', and affects the situation as such. The same as supporting the death penalty doesn't make someone a murderer anymore than supporting the Giants will get you a superbowl ring.

I know you think your argument holds water because 'I'm not being literal, my dear', but that doesn't stop it from being bullshit.
There you are being literal again.
You want to believe that you're not a killer, and I don't blame you.

[zion the lion]

Now see, if they put a murderer in a room by himself for life and only fed him Ritz crackers every day...I'm all for that. Dude would go completely ballistic, and bash his head on the wall all day every day. That's a fuckin' punishment. Not to mention terribly hilarious.

I'm getting Dogget Lloyd on the phone tomorrow. And sending the thread.

And hi, I'm Travis.

And if you want to go the extra mile, you can lock him up in a library and break his glasses. I wouldnt want to watch someone go crazy, in all honesty I'd still feel bad, but not as bad as I do when I hear about an execution day.

[GeeBee]

That's not an immediate threat. Because my money is paying for the cage they live in, they deserve to die? So every petty thief and drug dealer should be put up for lethal injection too? And every kid who's on WIC deserves to be strapped in to the electric chair because my money is paying to feed them? You're paying to keep those criminals confined to a secluded area where they are being punished, if you have such a problem with that, then why dont you just go in and release them all?

Have you ever even been to a prison before? They arent spas.
.
See below.
Not to put words in Geebee's mouth, but you are making some ridiculous leaps in logic there.
Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I was taking a page from his own book because calling a maximum security prison luxurious, and saying the criminals are an immediate threat because a small amount of your paycheck actually goes to maintaining the prison, are both rather big leaps.
Again, see below. I was making a comparison. Also, thousands of "small amounts" add up to a huge amount.
Never thought I'd find myself on the left of GeeBee.
Haha. The thing is, I don't look at it from a moral/philosophical standpoint (in which case I'd agree with you wholeheartedly), but rather a sociological/biological one. Societies of all stripes in the animal kingdom determine the lines you can and can't cross. I see no reason to allow PROVEN (that's the big caveat) offenders of a degree determined DEMOCRATICALLY (the second biggie) to continue breathing the same air as the rest of society.
Indeed; don't forget that most European nations consider US prison conditions to be barbarous (well, not as barbarous as those of Turkey or Mexico, but bad enough). Even been in jail in Austria? Or, even better, Sweden? :-)
Barbarous because we aren't interested in rehabilitation. We're interested in punishment.
Solitary is so much better than the death penalty. It's not even as much money spent, if you're sitting around in a room all day, you only need probably 600 calories, which is pretty much a tube of ritz crackers.

I'm a bitch now, I used to be amazingly nice.
Do some reading on what psychologists say are the effects of solitary confinement. You're dead wrong.
Preciesly. And since in real life there is never such a thing as 100% certainty, I rest my case.
I'd say the price you pay for a decent justice system is the possibility that you may make mistakes and operate on less than one hundred percent certainty.

[zion the lion]

See below.



Again, see below. I was making a comparison. Also, thousands of "small amounts" add up to a huge amount.

Do some reading on what psychologists say are the effects of solitary confinement. You're dead wrong.


And that huge amount is still small compared to the rest of your paycheck or even what the rest of your tax money is going to.

Dead wrong on what? The Ritz thing?

[crackedthesky]

If someone keeps someone locked up in a cell in their basement, should we not lock them in jail? That seems to follow the same logic here. To show someone that locking someone up against their will is bad, we lock someone up against their will?

Seems like an apt comparison to me. About 50% of the posts in here are someone going 'So, to prove to someone murder is wrong, we murder them?! lolwut?!'

So, by that logic, what's the difference in my scenario.

(I know the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate, but let's not bullshit here, there's little to no rehabilitation in our prison system.)

I adressed this. The fact that it has turned away from rehabilitiation doesn't mean we should just give up on everyone.
Your analogy is an interesting one, but it isn't one that holds up. When you're in prison, you're allowed out. You get to eat, you get to make money, you can have a job. If you lock someone in a closet, you aren't doing that. And anyway, the purpose of locking them in prison isn't to punish them for what they've done, it's to keep them from doing it again while the rehabilitation process is (supposed to be) put to work. If you kill someone, you are eliminating any chance that process has of ever occurring. No one can learn that what they've done is wrong by being killed. That's the difference; if you lock someone up for locking someone up, they have the chance to correct their behaviour. If you kill them, you're doing nothing but killing them, and they have no chance to do anything except for die.

Okay well you obviously can't read. So thanks for coming out anyways.

Posts in this thread so far:

50% If you support death penalty you're a murderer!
30% Your post is stupid and makes no sense.
20% Original thought.

It's good to know that you're an asshole, who resorts to empty insults because he can't back up his point.
But seriously, I really would like to know: how is it not okay to kill people, but it's okay to kill people?

You can't even answer this one question. You keep dodging around it, not addressing it, or pretending to address it while changing the subject. Just let me know. Why is it okay to kill one person, but not okay to kill another person?

[GeeBee]

And that huge amount is still small compared to the rest of your paycheck or even what the rest of your tax money is going to.

Dead wrong on what? The Ritz thing?

No offense, but you've missed the point of every one of my posts. I'm done trying.

[Machu505]

Oh, I don't know. I am ridiculously fond of Sweden and Finland both, but lately have been developing a new-found love for Spain, Catalonia in particular.
Mmmmmmmm love Spain. If I could go anyplace in the world it would be there.

[Love As Arson]

Well, I was fine with the execution of Czar Nicholas II and Louis XVI, so that's my standard.