| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/23/2011 05:41:56 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Basta:
Death Penalty is a MASSIVE DETERRENT 100%... how could anyone even question that? .... |
Hmm... Well, you did ask didn't you?
Let's talk about word choice shall we?
Deterrent:(adjective) A thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something...
Once they've committed the crime there is simply no possibility of something being a deterrent.. The word deterrent means that it must happen before the action, not after. |
But what if it's a repeat offender?
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 05:45:30 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Basta:
Death Penalty is a MASSIVE DETERRENT 100%... how could anyone even question that? .... |
Hmm... Well, you did ask didn't you?
Let's talk about word choice shall we?
Deterrent:(adjective) A thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something...
Once they've committed the crime there is simply no possibility of something being a deterrent.. The word deterrent means that it must happen before the action, not after. |
But what if it's a repeat offender? |
It's still not a deterrent, as they have then killed again.
That is simply not how the word is used in the context of the death penalty arguments.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 05:57:28 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Basta:
Death Penalty is a MASSIVE DETERRENT 100%... how could anyone even question that? .... |
Hmm... Well, you did ask didn't you?
Let's talk about word choice shall we?
Deterrent:(adjective) A thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something...
Once they've committed the crime there is simply no possibility of something being a deterrent.. The word deterrent means that it must happen before the action, not after. |
Takes care of the repeat offenders, therefore crime is prevented. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 05:58:16 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm pretty sure that I'd rather die quickly as a wrongly convicted innocent than to spend 30-40 years in prison. |
Now that's new, it's for the wellbeing of the convicted that they get executed! But in that case one could give the convicted a choice between death and prison, would you agree with that? :'-( |
No, because the assumption in this case is that though I'm actually innocent, I have been "proven" guilty. |
OK, I can see your point, but I am still totally amazed one could think that killing the innocent is a positive side-effect. So let me ask you a question: if you are innocent and convicted in first instance, would you try to appeal or get over with your death sentence as quick as possible? (you don't have to answer: if you appeal you can guess my next question, if not I don't believe you) |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 06:01:21 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Basta:
Death Penalty is a MASSIVE DETERRENT 100%... how could anyone even question that? .... |
Hmm... Well, you did ask didn't you?
Let's talk about word choice shall we?
Deterrent:(adjective) A thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something...
Once they've committed the crime there is simply no possibility of something being a deterrent.. The word deterrent means that it must happen before the action, not after. |
But what if it's a repeat offender? |
It's still not a deterrent, as they have then killed again.
That is simply not how the word is used in the context of the death penalty arguments. |
Yeah, I know, I was just running with Basta's comment. He's going with the death penalty's definition as deterring one particular someone forever from repeating criminal behaviour instead of revenge. That in a way makes more sense then assuming the death penalty as merely an eye for an eye thing.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 06:20:48 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm pretty sure that I'd rather die quickly as a wrongly convicted innocent than to spend 30-40 years in prison. |
Now that's new, it's for the wellbeing of the convicted that they get executed! But in that case one could give the convicted a choice between death and prison, would you agree with that? :'-( |
No, because the assumption in this case is that though I'm actually innocent, I have been "proven" guilty. |
OK, I can see your point, but I am still totally amazed one could think that killing the innocent is a positive side-effect. |
History is full of such people, not suprising at all. It is societies job to make sure they never rise to power.
lols, another idea, is if a wrongly convicted person is convicted and put to death, that all who had approved of the wrongful conviction suffer the same punishment. Live by the sword die by the sword.
Message edited by author 2011-09-23 18:26:15. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 06:34:03 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm pretty sure that I'd rather die quickly as a wrongly convicted innocent than to spend 30-40 years in prison. |
Now that's new, it's for the wellbeing of the convicted that they get executed! But in that case one could give the convicted a choice between death and prison, would you agree with that? :'-( |
No, because the assumption in this case is that though I'm actually innocent, I have been "proven" guilty. |
OK, I can see your point, but I am still totally amazed one could think that killing the innocent is a positive side-effect. So let me ask you a question: if you are innocent and convicted in first instance, would you try to appeal or get over with your death sentence as quick as possible? (you don't have to answer: if you appeal you can guess my next question, if not I don't believe you) |
Of course I'd appeal...I'd do everything possible to get out of it. However, once that was through, I'd just as soon get it over with. Neither choice is a desirable outcome, but it would be better to just get on with it and end the misery.
Killing an innocent isn't a positive. IMO, it's the less negative of the two options. Life in prison or death?
Message edited by author 2011-09-23 18:36:07. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 06:34:55 PM · #58 |
The problem is that the death penalty doesn't deter the premeditated crimes committed by criminal types and serial killers. Not one bit. But the crimes that are deterrable, ie. 2nd degree murder, or crimes of so called passion by regular non-criminal until the act- types, do not afford the assailant death or even life in prison. SO those aren't deterred either.
In a country loose on gun laws, and forgiving of "crimes of passion" there is little or no deterence in the law to prevent keeping a shotgun around in case the old lady cheats. (of course, forgive me if I overgeneralize a bit).
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 06:35:22 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Neil:
I don't recall where, but I seem to recall seeing some statistic showing the death penalty is not a deterrent. |
Perhaps not my dear friend... but it does eradicate any and all recidivism.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 06:39:12 PM · #60 |
US prisons are packed with innocent murderers...go ahead, do the survey...minimum 90% creeps in prison are innocent. One must wonder who the hell commits all the murders with all the innocent people in prison.
Ohhh, just because bunch of corrupt lawyers and criminals families tell you they are really nice people once you get to know them. Forget about DNA and things like that. If the guy said he didn't do it or that he is sorry, let him go....
Ohhh yeah, He found the GOD. Thats the best one. Time to let him loose..
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 06:47:55 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm pretty sure that I'd rather die quickly as a wrongly convicted innocent than to spend 30-40 years in prison. |
Now that's new, it's for the wellbeing of the convicted that they get executed! But in that case one could give the convicted a choice between death and prison, would you agree with that? :'-( |
No, because the assumption in this case is that though I'm actually innocent, I have been "proven" guilty. |
OK, I can see your point, but I am still totally amazed one could think that killing the innocent is a positive side-effect. So let me ask you a question: if you are innocent and convicted in first instance, would you try to appeal or get over with your death sentence as quick as possible? (you don't have to answer: if you appeal you can guess my next question, if not I don't believe you) |
Of course I'd appeal...I'd do everything possible to get out of it. However, once that was through, I'd just as soon get it over with. Neither choice is a desirable outcome, but it would be better to just get on with it and end the misery.
Killing an innocent isn't a positive. IMO, it's the less negative of the two options. Life in prison or death? |
So what you're saying is that you give up easily. Gotcha.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 06:48:03 PM · #62 |
Anyone ever sat on a jury, you tend to take what you hear very seriously when you do, funny how we are now taking the side of the convicted person and assuming we all know he was innocent even though we did not hear all of what the jury heard. His lawyers have plenty of time to create doubt in the minds of the public but apparently not of the people seeing all the evidence. In the Casey Anthony trial everyone was up in arms saying she was guilty and how could they have possible let her go even though the jury that heard the case felt there was no real evidence but rather a good probable scenario that made her look guilty.
As for the death penalty, not much of a deterrent, you live a long life waiting to die and most people who have been given a death sentence never get put to death and get groups to elevate them to victim status. Count me as on the fence about whether we should have the death sentence, it is not an effective way to prevent crime but it does make sure the crime is not repeated.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 06:51:48 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
but Mike, what happens when there is a mistake and an innocent person is murdered by the state? |
You did not really expect an answer for that? It's much simpler to ignore such annoying questions. |
sorry, i have been away from the pc.
the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you are guilty, not innocent.
Message edited by author 2011-09-23 18:52:41. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 07:13:38 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
In northern Europe where there is no death penalty and not even a life in prison, and there are VERY FEW crimes.
The State shouldn't kill people, it has no rights to do that. State should work on a different level and not be the one whose behaviour is exactly the same of the criminal. |
I should move to northern Europe. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 07:18:32 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you are guilty, not innocent. |
From the Innocence project.
I thought some of you may be interested in these statistics from the Innocence Project, which has now had some 100 death sentences overturned based upon post-conviction evidence. According to their study of the first 70 cases reversed:
Over 30 of them involved prosecutorial misconduct.
Over 30 of them involved police misconduct which led to wrongful convictions.
Approximately 15 of them involved false witness testimony.
34% of the police misconduct cases involved suppression of exculpatory evidence. 11% involved evidence fabrication.
37% of the prosecutorial misconduct cases involved suppression of exculpatroy evidence. 25% involved knowing use of false testimony.
The problem with an adversarial judicial system is that sometimes the wrong side wins, and sometimes they cheat to win. Every system make mistakes, sometimes the guilty walk, and sometimes the innocent are convicted. It is vanishingly rare for a person rich enough to hire top notch lawyers to get the death sentence, it is largely imposed on the poor. And once a person has been killed by the state, no matter what exculpatory evidence might come up, the state has trouble un-killing them.
When the state participates in the culture of murder, that killing a person is not only allowed under certain circumstances, but is beneficial, then it is sending a message to the population that killing is sometimes a viable choice. On average countries that do not put their people to death find their citizens tend to kill each other less often.
Message edited by author 2011-09-23 20:57:23. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 11:29:12 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
On average countries that do not put their people to death find their citizens tend to kill each other less often. |
interesting.... you are comparing two different kinds of of fruit....
in US crime is glorified, Gangsters are heros, criminals are idols.... preventing serious crime starts at the early age, when that future death row inmate does his first B&E or car jacking...thats when he must be punished hard so he does not consider crime as something fun to do . Every Detroit kid will tell you they can do whatever they like, because they are minor. There is no consequences.
Go to Singapore and see what happens to a kid vandalizing someones car. Can you take a wild guess where teenagers are less likely to make trouble..Detroit or Singapore?
Another thing ....all the "No Death Countries" are seeing an increase in violent crimes as off late, could it be a fashion or economy? Maybe Daddy backhanded them when they were little?
How can you even compare No death country like Swiss to US ?
In what part off Switzerland could one find the Ghetto ?
Message edited by author 2011-09-23 23:50:39. |
|
|
|
09/24/2011 01:13:38 AM · #67 |
| I didn't read every post closely, but it strikes me that in this conversation the main (or only) argument against the death penalty is that it does not deter other crimes. If we put this aside for a moment and assumed that the death penalty does deter crime, would that change people's minds? Is it only on pragmatic grounds that the members of this discussion are against capital punishment? |
|
|
|
09/24/2011 01:21:14 AM · #68 |
| A Gordian Knot for sure. Suppose the question were rephrased: where would you rather spend your tax dollars - educating our youth so that they have options other than those which may lead to the death penalty, or feeding/clothing/housing/caring-for-medically those who have already proven they don't give a damn about anyone else? |
|
|
|
09/24/2011 01:21:19 AM · #69 |
Well, turn that the other way, Jason: why would you put someone to death if it were not for some sort of deterrence?
An interesting aside - the anti-death penalty folks pretty much avoided the Texas execution. The individual who was executed there was quite guilty, freely admitted it, was proud of it, said he'd do it again. And the only folks saying he shouldn't die, oddly enough, were relatives of his victim. They also were present at the execution. |
|
|
|
09/24/2011 01:35:07 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Well, turn that the other way, Jason: why would you put someone to death if it were not for some sort of deterrence?
An interesting aside - the anti-death penalty folks pretty much avoided the Texas execution. The individual who was executed there was quite guilty, freely admitted it, was proud of it, said he'd do it again. And the only folks saying he shouldn't die, oddly enough, were relatives of his victim. They also were present at the execution. |
I hope you aren't assuming that I'm pro-capital punishment. You'd have to ask someone else for the answer to your question. Revenge was already mentioned. The fact that the executed could not commit another crime was also mentioned. Both are reasons. Whether they are "valid" depends on what you consider to be valid...
I think your aside is also interesting and disappointing. If you are anti-death penalty, you should be anti-death penalty not mostly anti-death penalty except when the criminal is really grotesque. That is such a weaker argument.
Message edited by author 2011-09-24 01:36:34. |
|
|
|
09/24/2011 01:41:12 AM · #71 |
| I'm not particularly pro death penalty either, but I do have to wonder what we SHOULD do with people like the man executed in Texas. A good Biblical stoning, perhaps? If there is no chance of making a person viable in civilized (or even uncivilized) society, what DO you do with them? The man mentioned earlier in the thread from the country with no death penalty, the one who let two girls starve to death rather than telling anyone where they were - what do you with creatures like that? |
|
|
|
09/24/2011 01:43:58 AM · #72 |
I disagree completely with the death penalty.
As usual the media and the government co-operated with the judiciary system to make sure this went through.
The death penalty is barbaric and cruel.
And I am sure people will say "but so is murder".
And I agree. However, the cause of crime must be examined. Many, many crimes are committed due to financial problems, or social problems caused by these, or mental problems caused by financial/social problems. Say what you will, this system we live in is ultimately the root cause of criminal activity. And criminal activity occurs at the highest levels of our system. Trillions of dollars handed over to financial institutions to bail them out. Paid for by who? By ordinary people in the form of cuts to welfare, social spending, jobs, waging conditions, etc.
And in the words of Bob Dylan,
"And the newspapers they all went along for the ride
How can the life of such a man
Be in the palm of some fool's hand ?
To see him obviously framed
Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land
Where justice is a game.
Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties
Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise"
|
|
|
|
09/24/2011 01:50:25 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'm not particularly pro death penalty either, but I do have to wonder what we SHOULD do with people like the man executed in Texas. A good Biblical stoning, perhaps? If there is no chance of making a person viable in civilized (or even uncivilized) society, what DO you do with them? The man mentioned earlier in the thread from the country with no death penalty, the one who let two girls starve to death rather than telling anyone where they were - what do you with creatures like that? |
You prevent them from doing that again, but it doesn't require killing them to do that.
Another interesting thing I've noted is the repeated use of the word "civilized" along with opposite words like "barbaric" (you weren't the first one to use "civilized"). What do these words mean? Sometimes really basic questions don't have easy answers. Why is it not civilized to kill a criminal if the civilization decides it wants to do so?
Message edited by author 2011-09-24 01:50:57. |
|
|
|
09/24/2011 02:08:51 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'm not particularly pro death penalty either, but I do have to wonder what we SHOULD do with people like the man executed in Texas. A good Biblical stoning, perhaps? If there is no chance of making a person viable in civilized (or even uncivilized) society, what DO you do with them? The man mentioned earlier in the thread from the country with no death penalty, the one who let two girls starve to death rather than telling anyone where they were - what do you with creatures like that? |
You prevent them from doing that again, but it doesn't require killing them to do that.
|
Yes, you can lock them up for life. But someone has to deal with them day in and day out. Guards, wardens, other prisoners. You did read about the guy in Belgium, right? No way should that man ever be integrated back into society. You certainly wouldn't want him in your neighborhood. So what do we do with him? What does he do in jail? He's fed, housed, clothed. To what end? |
|
|
|
09/24/2011 02:08:57 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Another interesting thing I've noted is the repeated use of the word "civilized" along with opposite words like "barbaric" (you weren't the first one to use "civilized"). What do these words mean? Sometimes really basic questions don't have easy answers. Why is it not civilized to kill a criminal if the civilization decides it wants to do so? |
Does the civilisation want the death penalty? Ultimately I have heard disagreement.
We live, to an extent, in a civilised society. This means we have advanced our social order, technology, and means of production. However it is not as advanced as it could be. There are still elements of barbarism - capital punishment, wars waged in the name of humanitarian aid, etc.
Barbarism and civilisation are not abstract concepts. They are terms applying to the state of society and it's historical advancement/regression. |
|
