Originally posted by Frank BurnsAs if the alternative of the death penalty was release from prison? And as far as a deterrent, take a look at the data. The states with the highest execution rates have the highest murder rates, and the states where there is no death penalty have the lowest murder rates. The numbers just aren't there to support the assertion.
And as far as the death penalty being a deterrent, it is. The person we put down will never again roam this country and commit his/her's atrocities upon the good and honorable citizens again.
3 edits
Originally posted by treetalkactually there's some very respectable and, i think, accurate criticism of liberalism - which emphasises (and probably over-emphasises) individual rights - on several fronts. Obviously, by executing someone, the US is saying that the right to life is in fact alienable, and if this right is alienable, why not others as well? I think monsters like this guy, once convicted and having gone through the appeals process, should be deemed to have forfeited their human rights. And the punishment should fit the crime. Not as a deterrent, not as a cost-effective way of protecting society from them, but purely as a punishment.
Out with the old 'liberal' chestnut.
It's become an almost Pavlovian reaction for idiots.
EDIT: punctuation for disambiguation
EDIT: sheesh, i can't type to save myself today...
Originally posted by Ramiri15those statistics are what you should expect. if there are fewer murders then, ceteris paribus, you should expect fewer executions for murder. those numbers by themselves don't show whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not.
As if the alternative of the death penalty was release from prison? And as far as a deterrent, take a look at the data. The states with the highest execution rates have the highest murder rates, and the states where there is no death penalty have the lowest murder rates. The numbers just aren't there to support the assertion.
Originally posted by dfm65No, what I'm saying is that states where the death penalty has been abolished have the lowest murder rates. This is in complete contradiction to the assertion that it is a deterrent.
those statistics are what you should expect. if there are fewer murders then, ceteris paribus, you should expect fewer executions for murder. those numbers by themselves don't show whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not.
one problem is handing the sentence to jury trial. it's a crapshoot after that.
another crapshoot is the choice of judges.
they should just use matrices to decide guilt and punishment.
you are accused of crime A with evidence B, you are guilty.
you are guilty of crime X with circumstances Y and prior history Yy, you get penalty Z.
then leave it to the juries/judges to decide if the matrices are being followed or not. with the legislatures to decide upon the matrices.
Originally posted by dfm65Who the hell are we to make a judgement on what rights a human being has and how they might be forfeited.
I think monsters like this guy, once convicted and having gone through the appeals process, should be deemed to have forfeited their human rights.
It is arrogance in the extreme to suggest anybody has forfeited their right to life as if we have a clue what life is and where it comes from.
Originally posted by WheelySo you want this guy living beside your family? The cruel part of these executions is the length of time on death row.
Who the hell are we to make a judgement on what rights a human being has and how they might be forfeited.
It is arrogance in the extreme to suggest anybody has forfeited their right to life as if we have a clue what life is and where it comes from.
A rope is re-usable.
Me? I am judge, jury and if requested, executioner.
Originally posted by lordhighgusNo, I don't want him living near me but there may be someone like him next door anyway.
So you want this guy living beside your family? The cruel part of these executions is the length of time on death row.
A rope is re-usable.
Me? I am judge, jury and if requested, executioner.
We do not have the ability to bestow life so I'm not sure how we manage to argue that we know when someone has forfeited it. As far as I know, I didn't sign a contract before I was born.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI think they would be coming from a POV of say, a father grieving over his murdered daughter, 'well here is the killer, still alive, in a warm environment, TV, weight room, some kind of job, three meals a day, while my daughter is never going to live another day'.
Again, why is it death or release? Surely the non-capital option of capital punishment is life in prison.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWell maybe your daughter shouldn't have been such a whore?
I think they would be coming from a POV of say, a father grieving over his murdered daughter, 'well here is the killer, still alive, in a warm environment, TV, weight room, some kind of job, three meals a day, while my daughter is never going to live another day'.
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhore or not is NOT the point here.
Well maybe your daughter shouldn't have been such a whore?
It all boils down to, this man committed murder with intent, multiple times. He therefore has no place in society on this planet and will never be able to be a functioning part of society.
What is the point of keeping him in jail for the next 50 years?
In the human world and animal world alike, there is always a check and balance for unacceptable behavior. Conform to the pack's rules or face the consequence.
It is common knowledge that death penalty is an option in the U.S., so I guess if you want to kill someone bad enough, you should be willing to sacrifice your own life also. Do the deed yourself and be done with it already!
Originally posted by mlpriorWhy should he be put in prison instead of executed? First a logical argument. Say in 15 years the evidence is re-examined (for whatever reason) and it turns out that the person is innocent (yes it happens). If you put him in prison for life you give him compensation (for serving 15 years for something he didn't do) and send him on his way. If you executed him then what do you do?
Whore or not is NOT the point here.
It all boils down to, this man committed murder with intent, multiple times. He therefore has no place in society on this planet and will never be able to be a functioning part of society.
What is the point of keeping him in jail for the next 50 years?
In the human world and animal world alike, there is ...[text shortened]... be willing to sacrifice your own life also. Do the deed yourself and be done with it already!
And now a moral argument. You claimed that this person committed murder with intent, multiple times. Does that make it OK for the state to commit sponsored murder with intent, multiple times (on separate criminals obviously)? Sure there are some differences but the central point remains, is it ever morally right to kill a man who can be safely dealt with without death (this proviso excludes say self-defence)?
And at the end of your post you once again brought up the death penalty as a deterrent. Prove (or at least provide some statistics) that it is if you want to claim it is so.
Originally posted by XanthosNZInnocent people dying from lack of food, clean water, medicine and shelter in the third world, and even in the developed world are far more worthy of your sympathy and your time.
Why should he be put in prison instead of executed? First a logical argument. Say in 15 years the evidence is re-examined (for whatever reason) and it turns out that the person is innocent (yes it happens). If you put him in prison for life you give him compensation (for serving 15 years for something he didn't do) and send him on his way. If you executed ...[text shortened]... eterrent. Prove (or at least provide some statistics) that it is if you want to claim it is so.