[daimoni]

.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Wouldn't the proper comparison be how many inmates sentenced to death have been found innocent v. how many innocent people have been hurt by inmates who have escaped from prison?

The proper comparison would be how many inmates sentenced to death have been found innocent v. how many guilty people have been hurt by inmates who have escaped from prison?

Also how many cats said escaped criminals have kicked and quantity of Wintels bought.

How do you conclude what is the
proper comparison?

This is emotional stuff Simey. There is no legal precident, so in this discussion you're SOL.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
How do you conclude what is the
proper comparison?

This is emotional stuff Simey. There is no legal precident, so in this discussion you're SOL.

No, it's really philosophical. I always found utilitarianism interesting although whether rule utilitarianism is superior to act utilitarianism or the other way around is something that made my head spin. Anyway, Daimoni is presenting an interesting utilitarian question and I'd be interested to see if statistics could be found that would fairly answer it.

Besides, you realize that philosophy and law aren't exactly polar opposites.

[voodoo]

Well, I'll give you that law and philosophy aren't opposite poles. Philosophy touches so many things, from science to art.

For instance, politics and philosophy have a lot in common, as do science and philosphy, but politics and science...

Anyway, a philosophical conclusion on the subject of Capital Punishment will not be reached by comparing how many are executed innocent and guilty people escaping imprisonment. It is not a philosophical question, but rather a practical problem.

The philosophical question is along the lines of: Do we have the right to take a life?

Or; Is the life of a murderer less valuable than the life of a person who is not a murderer?

I have a question about the practiacality of the US capital punishment system: How many escape from prison, while waiting all those years to be executed? Since the wait on death row can be more than a decade, isn't there pretty much the same chance to escape from capital punishment as liftime in prison?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Anyway, a philosophical conclusion on the subject of Capital Punishment will not be reached by comparing how many are executed innocent and guilty people escaping imprisonment. It is not a philosophical question, but rather a practical problem.

Sure it could. Measuring the numbers like that is an analysis used in Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical school with two divisions. If I remember the definitions correctly, Act Utilitarianism asks what is the largest number of people who would be benefitted by a given course of action. Whichever way the balance comes out give you the answer to what is "right." Rule Utilitarianism, on the other hand, asks instead what general rule would generally benefit the most people most of the time. Whichever rule benefits the most people most of the time is what is "right" regardless of what the effect of the rule is in a given instance. (Note, real philosophers are free to correct my definitions, I took philosophy several years ago!).

So Daimoni's question and statistics could give a person a philosophically satisfactory answer provided, of course, the person first accepts utilitarianism. Your question about valuing lives would be pretty alien to someone who believes in utilitarianism.

Of course, the way people get tenure as philosophers is by asking questions. Never by answering them.

I have a question about the practiacality of the US capital punishment system: How many escape from prison, while waiting all those years to be executed? Since the wait on death row can be more than a decade, isn't there pretty much the same chance to escape from capital punishment as liftime in prison?

That's clearly the counterexample, and I have no idea what the answer is.

[Langdon]

As it stand now its 22 for and 21 against.
This is why it the laws won't be repealed.

[jcadam]

Well, in the U.S. at least, each individual state should be left to decide on this issue for themselves. The Supreme Court/Federal Government should stay out of it (this is currently the case, but wasn't always).

I also think the Abortion Issue should be handled at the state level (Values vary from region to region in the vast US). Murders, rapes, etc. are handled at the state level, abortion is no different in my mind. For those that like getting the inside of their uterus scraped with metallic objects, I'm sure it would remain legal in most states (West Virginia can ban abortion, Nevada and California can keep it legal).

Giving power back to the states (to deal with capital punishment and abortion, for instance, would remove a lot of these issues from federal politics (presedential campaigns, etc.), which could be a good thing. Perhaps I'm becoming a Libertarian, dunno.
My point is these shouldn't be nation-wide issues (people just become more divided and pissy that way).

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
That the United States continues to execute its own citizens is a national disgrace.

Um, no it's not. More US Citizens support it than not

It is a proven fact that capital punishment has no deterrent value.

If a murderer isn't deterred, than he/she cannot control themselves and are a serious danger to society.

It is a proven fact that capital cases cost more to try than non-capital cases, and that it costs more to support a prisoner on death row and execute him than it does to imprison him for his natural lifespan.

Nope. It costs more to imprison a murderer for 30, 40, 50, or 60 years than it does to imprison a murderer for 3 years.

It is a proven fact that innocent people (at least, people innocent of the specific crimes of which they were convicted) have been put to death.

With the advances in DNA technology, this will become a non-argument.

It is a proven fact that the death penalty is administered with gross unfairness, being applied far more often to minorities and the poor than to non-poor whites.

First of all, minorities commit more crimes. Hence the greater numbers. The poor also commit more crimes than the non-poor.

How people can still argue for the death penalty in the face of this is beyond me.

Example 1: Most people would rather put a child rapist/murderer to death than have him repeat the offense on someone else's children after parole. Look at the patterns in repeat offenses of this nature. They are staggering.

Example 2: Someone blows up an entire building of citizens ala Olahoma City

Example 3: Someone slaughters your wife for $50, which is then used to buy some crack. The murderer has been in and out of jail 3 times, not to mention various public drug treatment centers. His children were taken away from him when he almost beat his 3-year old son to death. One of his wives has not been heard from for 5 years, despite massive searches. Oh, and did I mention he butchered your wife for $50 in drug money?

Next case I see, I think you should volunteer to reform such individuals. They could live with you full-time. However, I want not one dollar of my taxes going to providing 40 years of food and shelter to such a skumbag.[/QUOTE]

And chris_h, it looks like you're out 5 bucks, but then again the thread did go off-topic. Give it a little more time, I'm sure it will come up.

Chris_H knew what arguments he could not win with his reasoning, hence his post.

The fact of the matter is that more people in this country want the death penalty than not. That's why it exists. When more people think like you, perhaps the death penalty will disappear.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

Nope. It costs more to imprison a murderer for 30, 40, 50, or 60 years than it does to imprison a murderer for 3 years.

Congratulations, you are 100% WRONG.
It costs less to imprison someone for their whole life than it does to execute them. That's a fact, jack.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Um, no it's not. More US Citizens support it than not

I'm sure you pulled that out of your ass too, but it's irrelevant. That's the exact reason that we don't have a democracy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Originally posted by spacefreak:

With the advances in DNA technology, this will become a non-argument.

It will? When?
And no it won't... you can never know for sure that someone is guilty unless you see it yourself... bribery and corruption happen all the time in our justice system, for example.

People who support murder sicken me, and that includes you spacefreak.

As to your examples, who gives a rat's ass... if someone shouldn't be out in society, lock them up.
As for your tax dollars, if we stopped locking people up for victimless 'crimes', we save more than enough money to put everyone on death row up in a hilton the rest of their lives.


I try not to associate with people who value money over human life.

[Face Ache]

I've known (at least) three people who turned out to be (convicted) murderers. I'm all for capital punishment if it can be proven beyond a doubt (caught red-handed for example). Race, poverty, abuse or not getting a puppy when you were a child are not excuses for murder.

But there has to be NO DOUBT about a person's guilt before I'll go along with it.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by chris_h:
Congratulations, you are 100% WRONG.
It costs less to imprison someone for their whole life than it does to execute them. That's a fact, jack.

That's a fact, based on very little. It was based on Timmy McVeigh and one other high profile case with years of legal expenses. If you read the complete statistics, you would see it broke the 100M mark. Not typical. Most don't even fight, making it cheaper.

I'm sure you pulled that out of your ass too, but it's irrelevant. That's the exact reason that we don't have a democracy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Statistically it's something like 60-40 for the death penalty. That's basically 50-50 since there is a margin of error, and idiots who go back and fourth.

It will? When?
And no it won't... you can never know for sure that someone is guilty unless you see it yourself... bribery and corruption happen all the time in our justice system, for example.

People who support murder sicken me, and that includes you spacefreak.

As to your examples, who gives a rat's ass... if someone shouldn't be out in society, lock them up.
As for your tax dollars, if we stopped locking people up for victimless 'crimes', we save more than enough money to put everyone on death row up in a hilton the rest of their lives.


I try not to associate with people who value money over human life. [/B]

As long as it's your money, I am against the death penalty. Once my hard earned cash goes towards giving an inmate surgery that my own grandmother couldn't get if she needed it... well the inmate can fo F--- themselves.

Commiting murder is like signing up for life long health insurance. You just don't have to pay anything.


And besides, most inmates wh get "life" never actually serve life. They get "sick" and released once the publicity wears off.... so they go back on the streets. Do your research. Only a handful actually die in prison. Most die at home after several family vacations in Disney World.

[denim]

Originally posted by undotwa:
My reason? Every guy or gal has a right to live unless you are acting in self defense. Nothing justifies taking another human life (again, unless it's in self defense). Lock these guys up, they won't do anymore harm.

Until they get out, sure.

This topic is about the society's right to self-defense. It's wrong to take a life, sure. However, if the other guy won't agree to that then there's no other option.

[daimoni]

.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by daimoni:



Most? Where are you pulling this out of your ass, from? TV Guide?

Haven't you heard of the term "without possibility of parole".

"without possibility of parole" doesn't cover medical reasons. It happens. Face it. Your precious justice system is the fraud I have accused it of being for years. Nothing more than a boat load of BS to please "middle to upper class white guy"



In France Maurice Papon (NAZI convicted of Crimes against Humanity) was released for health reasons. For those who are at least a little culturally literate considering it was the major headline for a week.

[Spliffdaddy]

ditto to what spacefreak said way up there^^

the death penalty doesn't bother me. I don't commit murder.

[macvillage.net]

If the IRS made is possible for you to choose if you wish to pay for keeping people in prison for "life without parole" (whatever).... I wonder how many would really pay, and who would be willing to flip the bill... me?


Fry them all. I don't commit murder. I'm just a humble guy behind his computer, working, or eating at a resturaunt. I don't stalk people with the intent of raping dead corpses or other sick things that these people do.

If you guys want to reward them with free health care and food for life, go ahead. Just don't use my damn money to reward crime like that. Use your own.

[Montanan]

I don't commit murder.

If you support capital punishment, and are a member of a society that has ever, ever executed a single innocent person, than you most certainly do commit murder

[daimoni]

.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by daimoni:


You've changed from 'most' to 'it happens'? Interesting.

My precious justice system? Gee, I thought it was all of ours... or did you run out and buy your own recently?

And as far as I can tell, France is not part of the United States of America. When was the last time we let a De Gaullist convicted of Nazi war crimes go away free from one of our prisons?

Oh, yeah. The answer is never.

When was the last time a convict who commited a murder died after illness in a prison? Besides Gotti? Hmm... Interesting how they all get out?


And yes, it is your precious justice system because you are the one with the belief that it does anything. Personally, I never believed in it. I don't think it has done society any good. What would:

Eye for an eye in central park:

Kill someone -> Get killed the same way in public view

Rape someone -> Get Bubba to show you what it's like, also in public view

Rape a child -> Rape by several members of a sex that you would prefer don't touch you, then a slow miserable death.

Drive Drunk -> 7 minutes in a pit with a bull, tiger, and lion after taking a shower with KoolAid and a nice rub down with a serloin steak. What happens happens. If you survive, fine... if not? Oh well.



That is true justice. That would actually be a deterent. But this BS "go to jail, and when the media doesn't pay attention, cough and play sick to get out " bull **** doesn't stand.

If's funny how if your black you get the death penalty, if your white, you get "life" and you misteriously get sick all of a sudden.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by jcadam:
...rapes your grandmothers corpse...

[deekay1]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Rape a child -> Rape by several members of a sex that you would prefer don't touch you...

what if you're bi-sexual? your options are kinda limited here. next time, - try harder!

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

Drive Drunk -> 7 minutes in a pit with a bull, tiger, and lion after taking a shower with KoolAid and a nice rub down with a serloin steak. What happens happens. If you survive, fine... if not? Oh well.

what's the KoolAid supposed to do?

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

I'd like to ask a few pointed questions, here, to help illustrate my point...

Who benefits from the death penalty?
If society in general, how does it benefit?
Does it benefit society because the criminal is no longer loose to cause harm to society?
Wouldn't life without parole accomplish the same benefit?
Why is there a death penalty?
Is it to deter future crimes?
If so, have any potential criminals stopped before murdering (or insert crime here), due to concerns about being eventually executed?
If it is not to deter future crimes, is it to punish the criminals, exact revenge on behalf of the surviving victims, execute justice in a good karma/bad karma sort of way?
In what way does life without parole not exact revenge, execute justice or punish the criminal in the same way as the death penalty? Is the only difference the cessation of life? Why is that more beneficial or effective to kill rather than to imprison?


May I humbly suggest that capital punishment appeals to a primal need to avenge, which society makes more antiseptic by filtering it through the judicial system, but which when all is said and done, is still a primal need to avenge. Is this a good or a bad thing? I dunno, but I tire of people who are pro-capital punishment trying to cloak it in different ways to make it more palatable. It is obviously not a deterrent in any effective or reliable sense, it is not instructive or corrective, it does not keep society any safer than life without parole, it merely is an eye for an eye.

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[denim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
It is obviously not a deterrent in any effective or reliable sense, it is not instructive or corrective, it does not keep society any safer than life without parole, it merely is an eye for an eye.

I don't have a problem with that. The recidivism rate is very low.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by denim:


I don't have a problem with that. The recidivism rate is very low.

the rate would exactly equal life without parole.

[denim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the rate would exactly equal life without parole.

The only real problem I have with it is that they use it too much.

There are definitely people without whom the world is a better place. Jeff Dahmer was one. Too bad the proper thing to do had to be done by an inmate in his case. For others, such as the animals who dragged a guy to death in Texas a few years ago, where there's no doubt and no reason, death's too good for them. Draw-and-quarter would be appropriate, using pickups instead of horses.

But the fact that they convict on someone's word... well, in cases like that I don't see how they can prove w/o a shadow of a doubt.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Who benefits from the death penalty?
If society in general, how does it benefit?

Society in general... Cheaper and the only way to keep criminals off the streets. I unlike some others don't like the idea if a convicted murder getting off after a few years.

Does it benefit society because the criminal is no longer loose to cause harm to society?

Yes

Wouldn't life without parole accomplish the same benefit?

Nope, they very often get off for health reasons, or just a "technicality" such as the wrong color pen was used in the police report.

Why is there a death penalty?
Is it to deter future crimes?
If so, have any potential criminals stopped before murdering (or insert crime here), due to concerns about being eventually executed?

As a deterent, and to ensure the guilty can't do it again.

Did it work? Most likely. If you were dirt poor and knew that if you raped a girl you thought was attractive you get food, medical care in prison for life.. or you can die on the streets, what would you do? It's common sense. This goes through peoples heads! People have raped and killed for this! When the death penalty came back... you don't hear these cases anymore.

If it is not to deter future crimes, is it to punish the criminals, exact revenge on behalf of the surviving victims, execute justice in a good karma/bad karma sort of way?

That too. Not so much to "revenge for victims" but to for society as a whole. As far as Karma goes, well that's personal taste. If you don't like it, don't flick the switch, let me.

In what way does life without parole not exact revenge, execute justice or punish the criminal in the same way as the death penalty? Is the only difference the cessation of life? Why is that more beneficial or effective to kill rather than to imprison?

Dead is the only way they can't do it again. Most likely they will get out again. "no possibility of parole" doesn't mean you can't spend the next 40 years looking for a loophole, or get a disease. No parole, means "no parole"!

May I humbly suggest that capital punishment appeals to a primal need to avenge, which society makes more antiseptic by filtering it through the judicial system, but which when all is said and done, is still a primal need to avenge. Is this a good or a bad thing? I dunno, but I tire of people who are pro-capital punishment trying to cloak it in different ways to make it more palatable. It is obviously not a deterrent in any effective or reliable sense, it is not instructive or corrective, it does not keep society any safer than life without parole, it merely is an eye for an eye. [/B]

Good point about "primal revenge"... Good topic overall. I beleive you are right when talking to the relative of a victim right after a crime or something like that.

But being pro death penalty, is a different idea. I don't think you can be proactivly "primal revenge". Revenge happens after the fact.

The death penalty is the only way to keep the idiots in society out. It's the best we have at this time (until we can just launch them all into space to live and kill eachother, at that time, I'll be for that). If you don't mind a serial rapist/murder getting out on a stupid techincality or "illness" and moving next door to your family... well, I feel sorry for your family. I hope nothing happens to them, but hey.. .you wanted it!

Me, keep them away.


"being against the death penalty" is like haveing unprotected sex with an AIDS victim with open wounds on their genetalia. It's just asking for it.



As for the KoolAid... if you ever put koolaid in the shower head, you know it turns your body red... try it and find a bull... see what happens.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by denim:


The only real problem I have with it is that they use it too much.

There are definitely people without whom the world is a better place. Jeff Dahmer was one. Too bad the proper thing to do had to be done by an inmate in his case. For others, such as the animals who dragged a guy to death in Texas a few years ago, where there's no doubt and no reason, death's too good for them. Draw-and-quarter would be appropriate, using pickups instead of horses.

But the fact that they convict on someone's word... well, in cases like that I don't see how they can prove w/o a shadow of a doubt.

but if they have life without parole, is that not effectively segregating them from society permanently? Isn't the world still a "better place" without them, just as much as if they were executed?

[denim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Isn't the world still a "better place" without them, just as much as if they were executed?

Not in my opinion. Revenge? No. Revenge would torture them first. They get off easy these days; we don't even hang 'em. Burning them, or pressing them to death, or throwing them out of a high window, or wrapping them in felt then trampling them with horses, or drowning, or draw-and-quartering, or whatever... THOSE would probably be too much. Too many people would enjoy it, and it'd become a new "reality" show. If that happened, they'd do it more often, to get higher TV ratings.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Just a step back for a second: I can't believe that people are discussing the death penalty so calmly and rationally. This is the Lounge, right? Have I stepped into a parallel universe?

[denim]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Just a step back for a second: I can't believe that people are discussing the death penalty so calmly and rationally. This is the Lounge, right? Have I stepped into a parallel universe?

We've already done that, though!

Hm. Let's give it a try:

An EYE for an EYE has all KINDS of HISTORY behind it! It's TRADITIONAL! Just ask Hammurabi! It's these wimps who call hanging "cruel and unusual" who need to get a clue! It was good enough for yer great-great-great-grandparents, why isn't it good enough for YOU?? Wimpy-I'll-cook-em-with-drugs-but-God-forbid-they should-get-a-quick-death-by-hanging!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

Society in general... Cheaper and the only way to keep criminals off the streets. I unlike some others don't like the idea if a convicted murder getting off after a few years.

I have only been contrasting the death penalty to life without parole. by definition that means not getting off after a few years.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Did it work? Most likely. If you were dirt poor and knew that if you raped a girl you thought was attractive you get food, medical care in prison for life.. or you can die on the streets, what would you do? It's common sense. This goes through peoples heads! People have raped and killed for this! When the death penalty came back... you don't hear these cases anymore.

Really? there have been no more rapes and murders since the return of the death penalty? How odd, they are reported in my newspaper. Maybe you live in a really, really, really safe part of the country.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
That too. Not so much to "revenge for victims" but to for society as a whole. As far as Karma goes, well that's personal taste. If you don't like it, don't flick the switch, let me.

If you want to execute someone that readily, the difference between you and the murderer is........?

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Dead is the only way they can't do it again. Most likely they will get out again. "no possibility of parole" doesn't mean you can't spend the next 40 years looking for a loophole, or get a disease. No parole, means "no parole"!

Again, I used the contrast point of life without parole. Whether our present parole system is adequate or fair is another debate. This debate is whether capital punishment is necessary or effective. I agree they are integrally related, but since I framed my contrast as "no parole" I did that to more narrowly focus the issue.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
But being pro death penalty, is a different idea. I don't think you can be proactivly "primal revenge". Revenge happens after the fact.

I don't know about that, your post seems fairly viscerally concerned with throwing the switch yourself, etc., enough that it makes a good case for pre-emptive revenge as a tangible point of view.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The death penalty is the only way to keep the idiots in society out.

No, its not. As I've stated, it is equally effective as life without parole.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's the best we have at this time (until we can just launch them all into space to live and kill eachother, at that time, I'll be for that). If you don't mind a serial rapist/murder getting out on a stupid techincality or "illness" and moving next door to your family... well, I feel sorry for your family. I hope nothing happens to them, but hey.. .you wanted it!

By saying that life without parole has the same benefit to society as the death penalty is not the same thing as asking for a serial rapist to move next door. But thanks for wishing that on my family. It really adds validity to your arguments (?).

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
"being against the death penalty" is like haveing unprotected sex with an AIDS victim with open wounds on their genetalia. It's just asking for it.

LOL! this doesn't even merit response.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
As for the KoolAid... if you ever put koolaid in the shower head, you know it turns your body red... try it and find a bull... see what happens.

Bulls are color-blind, if I recall correctly. They are responding the motion of waving something, not the color.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Nope, they very often get off for health reasons, or just a "technicality" such as the wrong color pen was used in the police report.

Typical pretzel logic from someone who has, among other things, argued that the Catholic Church hierarchy should not be liable for protecting and promoting known child molesters.

Would you kindly provide us with a link to a case in which a convicted murderer was released because "the wrong color pen was used in the police report"? Even if it happened, it has nothing to do with the death penalty. It has to do with the conviction, not the penalty.

I take it that you have no qualms about throwing the switch even though it's been demonstrated repeatedly that innocent people have been wrongly convicted and put on death row?

Here's something I would favor: put Cardinal Law in the electric chair and make macvillage throw the switch.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:


Typical pretzel logic from someone who has, among other things, argued that the Catholic Church hierarchy should not be liable for protecting and promoting known child molesters.

oh, yeah, right. Also remember he wanted to hold the parents of the molested children responsible but not the priest or the church who actually molested the kid? So, in his world, he would execute the parents of the abused kid and I guess let the priest pull the switch..guilt is such a fuzzy concept.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by zigzag:


Typical pretzel logic from someone who has, among other things, argued that the Catholic Church hierarchy should not be liable for protecting and promoting known child molesters.

Would you kindly provide us with a link to a case in which a convicted murderer was released because "the wrong color pen was used in the police report"? Even if it happened, it has nothing to do with the death penalty. It has to do with the conviction, not the penalty.

I take it that you have no qualms about throwing the switch even though it's been demonstrated repeatedly that innocent people have been wrongly convicted and put on death row?

Here's something I would favor: put Cardinal Law in the electric chair and make macvillage throw the switch.

And I would flick the switch in a second. No further questions. He knew what was going on.... my objection if you remember was convicting all priests assuming they all knew. Law admits he knew and didn't care. I am the first to agree that they should fry his ass. But only after he is tortured by watching Marilyn Manson live in concert for a few weeks. Let him pay.

My arguement back then was that we shouldn't punish an entire organization for the actions of a few. We should hunt for the few and prosicute their asses.

Should we bust every secretary and mailroom employee @ Enron? They did carry messages containing some risky actions? No of course not. Just get those guilty. Same thing. My point there was lets not start a witch hunt. All catholics aren't peidophiles. By the same logic all Irish are racist because they traded slaves a hundred years ago.


And "life without parole" does work... for parole... but getting out on a techinicality is different thing, and often happens. Same with getting out for illness. It happens. They just don't get out for "parole".

Kind of like saying "we will starve you to death"... You can never eat pork again!!! Will you die? Not as long as cows, chickens, fish roam the earth, not to mention plants.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

If a murderer isn't deterred, than he/she cannot control themselves and are a serious danger to society.

Are you making my point for me? Yes, murderers who aren't deterred are a danger to society, and the death penalty does not deter them. People who are afraid of being caught and punished as a rule tend not to commit crimes. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Nope. It costs more to imprison a murderer for 30, 40, 50, or 60 years than it does to imprison a murderer for 3 years.

Please cite your source. Here are some of mine:

A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison.

In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs "approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence."

In 1988 and 1989 the Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that reintroduction would involve a first-year cost of "more than $11 million."

Florida, with one of the nation's most populous death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence. -- From the ACLU's position paper against capital punishment

Originally posted by spacefreak:
With the advances in DNA technology, this will become a non-argument.

I'm delighted that you have such a confident view of the efficacy of science and the fair, objective application thereof. I'm not quite so optimistic myself.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
First of all, minorities commit more crimes. Hence the greater numbers. The poor also commit more crimes than the non-poor.

First of all, you don't understand what I was saying. I don't mean more minorities are sentenced to death; I mean more minorities are sentenced to death for crimes for which white offenders are not sentenced to death.

Comparing black and white offenders over the past century, the former were often executed for what were considered less-than-capital offenses for whites, such as rape and burglary. (Between 1930 and 1976, 455 men were executed for rape, of whom 405 � 90 percent � were black.) A higher percentage of the blacks who were executed were juveniles; and the rate of execution without having one's conviction reviewed by any higher court was higher for blacks. -- ibid.

Even if that weren't the case, the race of the victim is also a significant source of bias:

In recent years, it has been widely believed that such flagrant racial discrimination is a thing of the past. However ... an exhaustive statistical study of racial discrimination in capital cases in Georgia, for example, showed that "the average odds of receiving a death sentence among all indicted cases were 4.3 times higher in cases with white victims."

In 1990, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported to the Congress the results of its review of empirical studies on racism and the death penalty. The GAO concluded: "Our synthesis of the 28 studies shows a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty after the Furman decision" and that "race of victim influence was found at all stages of the criminal justice system process...."

In the trial courts of this nation, even at the present time, the killing of a white person is treated much more severely than the killing of a black person. Of the 313 persons executed between January 1977 and the end of 1995, 36 had been convicted of killing a black person while 249 (80%) had killed a white person. Of the 178 white defendants executed, only three had been convicted of murdering people of color. Our criminal justice system essentially reserves the death penalty for murderers (regardless of their race) who kill white victims. -- ibid.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
[Lame inflammatory bullsh!t snipped]

Example 3: Someone slaughters your wife for $50, blah blah freakin' blah. Oh, and did I mention he butchered your wife for $50 in drug money?

Did I mention you can't argue without resorting to half-assed appeals to emotion?

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Next case I see, I think you should volunteer to reform such individuals. They could live with you full-time. However, I want not one dollar of my taxes going to providing 40 years of food and shelter to such a skumbag.

See above. You're paying, friend, whether you want to or not. And I would rather keep violent recidivist criminals in jail for life.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Chris_H knew what arguments he could not win with his reasoning, hence his post.

chris_h knows that most of the "arguments" trotted out in favor of capital punishment are base, cowardly appeals to fear and outrage.

May I suggest you consider emigrating to Saudi Arabia? In that nation, you can be executed by stoning for committing adultery, or beheaded for practicing sorcery. And you can be arrested and held without legal counsel indefinitely until such time as you "confess." But hey, at least they don't have any criminals getting off on "technicalities."

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The fact of the matter is that more people in this country want the death penalty than not. That's why it exists. When more people think like you, perhaps the death penalty will disappear.

Not to worry, I got you covered here too:

It is commonly reported that the American public overwhelmingly approves of the death penalty. More careful analysis of public attitudes, however, reveals that most Americans prefer an alternative; they would oppose the death penalty if convicted murderers were sentenced to life without parole and were required to make some form of financial restitution. A 1993 nationwide survey revealed that although 77% of the public approves of the death penalty, support drops to 56% if the alternative is punishment with no parole eligibility until 25 years in prison. Support drops even further, to 49%, if the alternative is no parole under any conditions. And if the alternative is no parole plus restitution, it drops still further, to 41%. Only a minority of the American public would favor the death penalty if offered such alternatives.
-- ibid.

Macvillage, I got you too:

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
"being against the death penalty" is like haveing unprotected sex with an AIDS victim with open wounds on their genetalia. It's just asking for it.

Please. Even sensible death-penalty advocates admit there is no deterrent value to capital punishment.

Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non- death-penalty states. During the early 1970's death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.9 criminal homicides per 100,000 population; abolitionist states averaged a rate of 5.1. -- ibid.

Care to try again?

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
When was the last time a convict who commited a murder died after illness in a prison? Besides Gotti? Hmm... Interesting how they all get out?

Interesting how you just make stuff up. If you're going to continue to repeat this nonsense, at least provide a source. The last person I heard that this applied to was Al Capone, and his brain was so destroyed by syphillis by the time he got out they could've let him go in a public park for all the difference it would've made.

(BTW, off the top of my head, two of the gangsters put away by Henry Hill of "Goodfellas" fame, Paul Vario and Jimmy Burke, both died of illness in prison. Ditto Richard Speck. And Gotti, whom you kindly pointed out yourself. Care to offer any examples to the contrary?)

[deedar]

Too many innocent people on death row. Besides that - it's just flat-out wrong. Period.

[Yippi]

Originally posted by chris_h:


Congratulations, you are 100% WRONG.
It costs less to imprison someone for their whole life than it does to execute them. That's a fact, jack.

Where's your proof?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

And I would flick the switch in a second. No further questions. He knew what was going on.... my objection if you remember was convicting all priests assuming they all knew. Law admits he knew and didn't care. I am the first to agree that they should fry his ass. But only after he is tortured by watching Marilyn Manson live in concert for a few weeks. Let him pay.

My arguement back then was that we shouldn't punish an entire organization for the actions of a few. We should hunt for the few and prosicute their asses.

Should we bust every secretary and mailroom employee @ Enron? They did carry messages containing some risky actions? No of course not. Just get those guilty. Same thing. My point there was lets not start a witch hunt. All catholics aren't peidophiles. By the same logic all Irish are racist because they traded slaves a hundred years ago.

Fair enough, and I apologize for the sidetrack.

And "life without parole" does work... for parole... but getting out on a techinicality is different thing, and often happens. Same with getting out for illness. It happens. They just don't get out for "parole".

Again, "getting out on a technicality" has to do with the conviction, not the penalty. To the extent that it happens, it happens in non-capital and capital cases alike. It has nothing to do with the relative merits of the death penalty or life imprisonment. It's a red herring argument.

As for the parole issue, as Lerk has stated, if there is no parole, then there is no parole. So that red herring is gone.

You're still clinging to the "getting out for illness" argument, which strikes me as a pretty thin argument for the death penalty. Where do you get your information on this? Like your "technicality" argument, it sounds like speculation. Even if a few lifers get out for a few weeks at the end of their lives, it seems a small price to pay when the alternative is a system that risks the execution of innocent people.

And this, to me, is the crux of the matter: if you are so anxious to throw the switch, how do you address the proven risk of executing innocent people?

[Chuckmcd]

Here is my question? What is a human life worth? You can argue from that stance on either side, but I think when it all comes down to end one's life should being the convicted to a higher form of punishment than simply to live out his days confined.


Lerk, it's not really fair to say that we should look at how our parole system should be, we only have how it is. If it ever changes we'll revisit the issue, until then lets deal in reality. It's also a little skewed to say that you don't see it acting to deter crime. I doubt you hang out with many rapists, I know I don't. There are those who try to justify on these very boards that the only right and wrong they are accountable to is the system they make up in their heads... some people will do the crime regardless others... the risk may be worth it to them if they thing the pay off is good enough. You won't hear a lot of proto-rapists/murders/child molesters coming to the forefront and proclaiming that fear of being executed kept them from committing these atrocities.

Just my opinion, but if we value life as much as we claim to aren't we responsible to make the punishment for taking a life pretty strict.

[Yippi]

Originally posted by Montanan:

If you support capital punishment, and are a member of a society that has ever, ever executed a single innocent person, than you most certainly do commit murder

You sir are a Murderer.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
Here is my question? What is a human life worth? You can argue from that stance on either side, but I think when it all comes down to end one's life should being the convicted to a higher form of punishment than simply to live out his days confined.

in your opinion. Again, this is "eye for an eye". Instead of seeking to protect society or deter crime, your focus is finding a "higher form of punishment" that superceded life imprisonment.

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
Lerk, it's not really fair to say that we should look at how our parole system should be, we only have how it is. If it ever changes we'll revisit the issue, until then lets deal in reality.

well, actually I DO think its fair to compare life without parole against the death penalty. Life without possibility of parole IS a sentence in use in "reality", has been used in the past, it does exist, and is enforced in those cases where it has been meted to be so. Is it used infrequently? perhaps, but no more infrequently than the death penalty. Sorry, the "real world" attempt to discard my arguments doesn't hold. Life without possibility of parole is a punishment now available, I'm not suggesting an outrageous penal invention that doesn't now exist.
If you are trying to argue that those criminals given less than life without parole should be compared to the death row inmates, I'd disagree. Generally, a crime considered heinous enough to merit the death penalty would be on the same level as life without parole.

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
It's also a little skewed to say that you don't see it acting to deter crime.....(snip) You won't hear a lot of proto-rapists/murders/child molesters coming to the forefront and proclaiming that fear of being executed kept them from committing these atrocities.

You DO realize you're making my argument for me, here? No, you won't hear criminals saying the death penalty deterred them, because it doesn't. Frankly, no criminal (except those wanting to) expect to get caught in the first place, and the issue of what type of punishment is even further off their mental horizon.

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
Just my opinion, but if we value life as much as we claim to aren't we responsible to make the punishment for taking a life pretty strict.

Well...this appears to be saying if we value human life enough, shouldn't we therefore kill? This kind of reasoning TO ME seems contradictory and illogical.

[Bushleaguer]

Originally posted by Yippi:


Where's your proof?

This debate is a great topic, and I'd like to jump in with my point of view, but it's already been said so well by nonsuch, Lerkfish, daimoni etc. The fraudulent reasoning that was made up by macvillage.net and spacefreak is just laughable. "the wrong color pen" is a funny satire on the justice system however you cannot use that as a serious point. Just laughable.

For your proof, Yippi, heres what nonsuch posted in his valiant firefight

A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison.

In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs "approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence."

In 1988 and 1989 the Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that reintroduction would involve a first-year cost of "more than $11 million."

Florida, with one of the nation's most populous death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence. -- From the ACLU's position paper against capital punishment

Carry on

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

in your opinion. Again, this is "eye for an eye". Instead of seeking to protect society or deter crime, your focus is finding a "higher form of punishment" that superceded life imprisonment.

I don't think so, but it's just my opinion, and we both know what's that worth. An eye for an eye is, exactly as you said, a reaction to something. I wouldn't think that a society deciding something is valuable enough to hold sacred to be a reationary policy, but rather statement of value.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You DO realize you're making my argument for me, here? No, you won't hear criminals saying the death penalty deterred them, because it doesn't. Frankly, no criminal (except those wanting to) expect to get caught in the first place, and the issue of what type of punishment is even further off their mental horizon.

The arguement goes both ways... There are those who consider the weight of what they are about to do, to those it may be a determining factor, but we will never know. I'm not advocating this system, but it seems in fundamentalists muslim countries where peolpe get their hand cut off for stealing.. they don't steal as much. Though I think that is an extreme I think the case holds true here. But, I will admit that there is now way to prove this... it's simply your opinion vs. my own. I do think there are also those that you mentioned who do not consider, or are incable of considering the consequences...

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Well...this appears to be saying if we value human life enough, shouldn't we therefore kill? This kind of reasoning TO ME seems contradictory and illogical.

It may be a paradox but it's true. We fought in WWII because we wanted peace, same with WWI. We valued the lives of our people, and our way of life enough to sacrifice our lives, and the lives of our loved ones for it. It doesn't make sense on the surface, but it's true non the less. Kind of like those who wish to gain thier life must lose it. It's a paradox, not an oxymoron.

Let me end by saying this. I don't think there is an easy answer. To execute out of vengence is wrong, but at the same time there are consequences to our actions, and someone merely being put away for life doesn't seem like justice to many people. And once again I find myself wishing I had paid attention in debate class back in school

[macvillage.net]

Lets just agree, to get rid of capital punishment, but when the convict gets out (which they will) they get a free home right next to Chris_H, Zigzag, and Nonsuch so that these criminals can rape and kill their family's. Besides, there ok with it.


Personally, I don't want them near mine.


And the death penalty is more effective to life without parole because once their dead, technicalities don't matter anymore.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Lets just agree, to get rid of capital punishment, but when the convict gets out (which they will) they get a free home right next to Chris_H, Zigzag, and Nonsuch so that these criminals can rape and kill their family's. Besides, there ok with it.


Personally, I don't want them near mine.


And the death penalty is more effective to life without parole because once their dead, technicalities don't matter anymore.

If I was a lawmaker, this is how I would answer this statement. First of all, shame on you for introducing so many emotional arguments to distort the reality of the situation.

Any person living next to you is a possible mass murderer or rapist. And as long as we live in a society that endorses murder by the state and appeals to the emotional and vengeful side of humanity to retain the power to prosecute and kill minorities, then the possiblility of living next to a murderer or rapist will go up and up

With regards to your ludirous statement that most convicted murderers and rapists get out of jail because they are sick, here is my answer. First of all, lets start with the way we raise our children, because we can try to "fix" these crimes after the fact but our society will have better luck if we try prevention. Lets raise our children to respect life and to also respect the opposite sex. That way they will have true moral values and won't resort to murder and rape if they should ever live that sort of tragic life. We cannot raise our children to respect life while we still endorse the death penalty.

I think with the proper prevention and nurturing /w regards to raising children, we will have less crime to deal with. Also if a person commits a crime, life without the possibility of parole seems like a good punishment, although I am of the opinion that jail and execution will never be the solution to crime.. It's only a tool that the people in power use to retain control. Whites are using it against minorities in this country, and who knows.. maybe Arabs will be next, then perhaps anyone who thinks badly of the State. While we as citizens continue to give our freedoms (such as the freedom to live, even after commiting a heinous crime) then we will never have true liberty.

Edit: wow I really lose my train of thought easily.. Early alzheimers pass the gingko biloba.. anyways, I also wanted to add that there could be hospital jails where convicted felons who need treatment could go. As for tax dollars, well you live in a society that still uses jail as a punishment so enjoy paying for it. But never stop challenging your government to reform itself for the benefit of society

Oh and also, pot is not a crime Free the pot heads!!

[macvillage.net]

I assume most of you are for rehabilitating sexual offenders and bringing them back into the neighborhoods they are from right?

Sending a Peidophile to prison is a death sentence in the sense that prison inmates have a very sacred code as far as people who offend children go. Even scum of the earth has their limits of what they will take.

[daimoni]

.