The W
Views: 97638155
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.14 1041
The W - Current Events & Politics - US executed 1,000 person (Page 2)
This thread has 16 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.73
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(627 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (42 total)
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2750 days
Last activity: 2478 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.36
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      Originally posted by BigSteve
      There are more than a "few" countries that still have the death penalty. 78 countries still had it as of 2004.


    You're right. 78 Islamic theocracies, Communist regimes, military dictatorships, us and Japan - who almost never actually use it. Such wonderful company!


Sounds like a wonderful case of the reverse Mussolini fallacy (volokh.com).

Here's a good article (washingtonpost.com) on how Japan isn't exactly anti-death penalty. Also, I have to wonder how many of those "civilized" Western countries that have abolished the death penalty would have it if they listened to the will of their citizens?
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.35
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    article (washingtonpost.com) on how Japan isn't exactly anti-death penalty. Also, I have to wonder how many of those "civilized" Western countries that have abolished the death penalty would have it if they listened to the will of their citizens?


To play devils advocate, why should the will of the people dictate what governments do? Governments are charged with doing what is right, not popular.



Perception is reality
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.28
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    To play devils advocate, why should the will of the people dictate what governments do? Governments are charged with doing what is right, not popular.


Doc, I don't often flatly disagree with you, but what is your justification for this? A Government is what it is.

Some are all about a small group of power brokers who do what they want to do. They usually get call totalitarian goverments. In an older world, Monarchies filled this role.

Some of them are republics, in which the people delegate their views to a smaller group of people to vote for their views, feelings, whatever.

Some are democracies, where the people directly vote on their views.

"What is right" for all intents, doesn't exist. The will of the people may be the wrong thing(in your opinion). For example, 1932 in Germany. But for that nation, it is the right thing.(in their opinion).

When two nations disagree about what the "right thing" is and that disagreement is sharp enough, they have historically gone to war with each other.





We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.35
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      To play devils advocate, why should the will of the people dictate what governments do? Governments are charged with doing what is right, not popular.


    Doc, I don't often flatly disagree with you, but what is your justification for this? A Government is what it is.

    Some are all about a small group of power brokers who do what they want to do. They usually get call totalitarian goverments. In an older world, Monarchies filled this role.

    Some of them are republics, in which the people delegate their views to a smaller group of people to vote for their views, feelings, whatever.

    Some are democracies, where the people directly vote on their views.

    "What is right" for all intents, doesn't exist. The will of the people may be the wrong thing(in your opinion). For example, 1932 in Germany. But for that nation, it is the right thing.(in their opinion).

    When two nations disagree about what the "right thing" is and that disagreement is sharp enough, they have historically gone to war with each other.




AWA, as I stated, "to play devil's advocate." Ideally, I agree with you. But there are times when the elected officials of a government must act to do what is morally right, even if the people don't agree. If the people don't like it, they toss them out at the next election. And you and I would have to agree, I think, that based upon our religious beliefs that there are indeed certain "right things."

As for your examples, in my mind they "ruled" not governed. However, don't forget that the Nazi party came to power while never receiving a majority of any vote prior to 1933 when Hitler was basically handed the keys to the kingdom.



Perception is reality
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 454 days
Last activity: 321 days
AIM:  
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.84
    Originally posted by Crimedog
    Okay, first of all, what makes number 1,000 any more worthy of your sympathy than number 999? Or 1,001? Or 563? Yes, the United States has executed 1,000 people. So what? It's an arbitrary milestone because it's a nice round number.


1,000 is arbitrary, but it's also the only number the majority of people will take notice of. I'm not about to start a post about every person executed here, and so 1,000 is as good a number as any. Personally, I am involved in actions against every execution in Missouri, so I'm not sure your point.

    Originally posted by Crimedog
    Secondly, I love how people always feel the need to compare the United States _ which executes people after a long, lengthy process of trials, appeals and possible government intervention _ to places like China and Iran, where due process is a theoretical concept. Yeah, that's really a valid comparison. Next, why don't you tell me how the U.S. and Iran are both theocratical dictatorships. After all, there are places of worship in both countries.


The idea we're talking about here is whether the state has the right to execute someone. It doesn't matter the process by which the execution takes place.

    Originally posted by Crimedog
    And last, you show a complete and utter lack of understanding of Christianity by labeling all of us who are Christians _ and support the death penalty _ as revenge-driven wackos who think that anybody who commits a crime should be beaten to death with a ball-peen hammer. Well done.


I don't know, I'm getting a masters of divinity, so I don't think I have a complete lack of understanding of Christianity. The only valid reason for the death penalty is for revenge, as it is impossible to prove one way or the other whether it prevents murders. Thus, the only valid reason for supporting the death penalty is as an act of revenge. You can make up any other reason you want to make yourself feel better about it, but in the end executing someone is a revenge killing.

I never mentioned the ball-peen hammer, so that seems to be an attempt to detract from the point that you, a follower of Jesus, support revenge killings. I mean, that's your choice, but don't try to wiggle out of the fact it is the truth.

    Originally posted by Crimedog
    Here's why I'm so cranked up about this: I'm sick and tired of people coming out of the woodwork to protest how "inhumane" and "cruel" the death penalty is now that there's been 1,000 people executed. Well, golly gee, you mean that being executed isn't pleasant? I'll be darned. Here's what else I bet isn't pleasant: Being murdered. Or having a family member murdered. Why do the criminals who commit these crimes have more people concerned about their rights than the victims have concerned about theirs? You want to be anti-death penalty? Fine. I understand your point. But don't accuse those of us who support it of somehow being lesser human beings because we can't understand the blinding logic of the argument that says "1,000 people have been executed. That's much, much worse than 995 being executed."


This is such a false argument. Look, if someone said "locking up people who commit murder is wrong, let them all go" your post would have a point. Instead, people are saying "executing people who commit murder is wrong, lock them up instead." With the added piece of "and there have been times when innocent people hve been executed, so if they're locked up we have the option of later releasing them if they turn out to be innocent."

Also, since when do the executed have more people caring about them then murder victims? It seems to me you have lots of groups working on both issues, which is how activism works. You have people caring about victims rights, they work on that issue. You have other people caring about the death penalty, they work on that issue. One person cannot be involved in every issue they care about, so they pick and choose.

I personally saw many people working for victims, and not very many working on the death penalty, so I thought my energy could best used on death penalty issues. But I am pro-life in all cases, and anti-killing in all cases, I just can't work on every issue relating to killing that I'd like to. Despite that, the Friendship of Reconciliation group I work with here (who work for death penatly abolition) hold vigils both for executions and after someone has been murdered because we believe both acts are wrong. This is not an either/or thing here, but rather a belief that murder is always wrong, whetherr by individuals or the state.

    Originally posted by Crimedog
    The death penalty is not about revenge, okay? If you've ever seen an execution, then you'll know that there's no cheering. There's no celebration. It's an extremely grueling process for everybody involved.


Since when does revenge have to involve cheering? The revenge process is simple: "they killed my son/daughter/wife/husband, they deserve to die." You don't have to be happy about them dying, but that is wanting revenge. You can support that mentality, but don't try to call it anything but what it is. Nothing in this process is happy, nothing in this process deserves celebration. What we're saying here is do not compound one taking of a life with more taking of life. That doesn't make anything better. Also, people have been executed who we're innocent, and that makes things a whole lot worse. If someone is convicted of murder, send them to jail for life. That brings just as much closure but also allows the process of forigiveness to take place.


    Originally posted by CRZ
    Sad that people still commit crimes for which the penalty is death, too, but nobody seems to issue press releases when we pass a round number of *victims* unless the topic is "military killed in Iraq."

    (I apologise in advance for saying the I word)


It is sad that people also kill other people, which has nothing to do with the death penalty argument besides being a "hey, you don't care about the victims" type of marginalizing. There are many people who work on victim's rights, so your argument is pretty specious.

    Originally posted by CRZ
    You've said it twice now in three sentences - and both times you said it wrong because it needs a "th" in there. Forgive my proofreading.


Thank you for the proofreading. Though I get the impression you said it to invalide my argument, but you'd never do anything so anti-intellectual as that, would you?

    Originally posted by CRZ
    Here's a news flash: America has something in common with EVERY country in SOME way. This comes perilously close to trolling. I'll take America over China and Iran any day.


So, if we were to find out that Bush did kill babies in an act of genocide, would you say that it's unfair compare him to other genocidal leaders because "America has something in common with EVERY country in SOME way?" (note, Bush does not kill babies in an act of genocide, as I know some of you would miss the point).

The point is that the death penalty is a pretty big thing to have in common with Iran and China. This is way above the realm of "both countries eat a lot of rice."

Also, it's pretty ignorant to say "well, because America is better then Iran, our *insert immoral activity here* is okay and theirs is wrong." It comes quite close to "not listening to you, America, America, America, I don't care what you say, America" ground. I don't care how great this country is, there are some major things needing change, like the death penalty, and saying "well, Iran is worse" does nothing to help your argument.




Unfortunately, they prove nothing. You simply cannot prove whether the death penalty is effective at preventing homocides or not, and many have tried.

It is simply not a valid argument to use when discussing the death penalty.

The death penalty costs more then life in prison, lawyers are generally working pro bono and are overworked, innocent people have definitely been executed (two people that are already executed have been shown to be innocent this year alone), there is no humane way to execute someone, and unfortunately, overzealous prosecutors do break quite a few rules when prosecuting death penalty cases.

Also, Governors in states such as mine (Missouri) are not about to ever give a stay on an execution fearing political backlash. How many times have you seen a quote such as this "we do not want to delay the proces anymore for the family of the victim." That is not making a decision based on evidence, that is making a decison based on emotion and politics, both of which have no place in the death penalty process.

Twice this year, the board that reviews death penalty cases in Missouri recommended stays because of prosecutor misconduct and both times the Governor refused to provide the stay.

The last death penalty case in Missouri involved major problems including multiple story changes by the star witness and major problems with his story. There was atl east enough problems that the case should have been reviewed, but the Governor said he didn't want to further the process and wanted the victim's family to have closure. Again, this is not making a decision based on evidence, but rather politics.

For my part, I do not feel it is possible to take emotion and politics out of the death penalty process, which is one more reason to do away with it. When you are talking about taking someone's life, an irreversable action, there should be zero question of guilt, and I just do not feel we can ever have zero question of guilt in such an emotional issue.





AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.28
I think this is my third post in this topic, so I am going to make it my last. If anyone want to further discuss it with me, please do it via PM. Heck, we probably won't agree anyway. I am unlikely to change.

    Originally posted by messenoir
    I don't know, I'm getting a masters of divinity, so I don't think I have a complete lack of understanding of Christianity. The only valid reason for the death penalty is for revenge, as it is impossible to prove one way or the other whether it prevents murders.


Well, I have my masters from a conservative Seminary (Southern) and:

1. I can guarantee that giving the death penalty to a person prevents that person from committing more murders.

2. The New Testament says its share about the death penalty.

a> In the OT, punishment for wrongs commited against your family were the responsibility of the oldest son. So if you killed a guy, his son would be coming after you. That's why 6 of the 48 towns given to the Levites in Numbers 35:6ff were cities of refuge where a person could go if sonny boy was hunting them down, and he was innocent or had mitigating circumstances.

b> by the NT, lots and lots of command are given to individuals about actions we're to take with each other (Ie: I can't judge your faith, I am to let you strike me and take my coat, etc.), but Governments have a different role. Romans 13:1-7 is one place that outlines this role of Government that is different in the Christian world.

Essentially, it says, God established Governments, all of them, even the bad ones, and anyone who rebels against that (Murder is breaking the law, and therefor a rebel - the word rebel here is not someone leading a revolution, but a lawbreaker) authority brings the punishment they mete on them. Since this passage says the person not breaking the law does not have to feat the government, then it stands to reason that the person do does, should. 13:4b says: "If you do wrong, be afraid, for he (the govenment) does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an Angel of Wrath to Bring Punishment on the wrongdoer"
It should be noted that capital punishment was very, very common in 58AD, when Saul of Tarsus wrote this and he didn't say a word against it. No, he said that God had appointed the very government that, a few years later, took his life, even if he wasn't guilty of any crime except being a believer. If Paul doesn't rail against, why should we?

Ok, like I said, I am sorry I posted this many times in the same thread. I'll pull back now. I recognize Christians disagree about this. Like most of the Christians in my part of the spectrum, I believe that one of the government's roles is that life should be granted to the innocent and that the guilty should pay a fair price for their crimes.




We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.26
    Originally posted by messenoir
    It is sad that people also kill other people, which has nothing to do with the death penalty argument besides being a "hey, you don't care about the victims" type of marginalizing. There are many people who work on victim's rights, so your argument is pretty specious.
You, four days ago: "US executes 1,000 person. What a sad, sad milestone."

Me: "Hey, you know what else is sad? Murder with special circumstances!"

I believe I rose to your level there.

    Thank you for the proofreading. Though I get the impression you said it to invalide my argument, but you'd never do anything so anti-intellectual as that, would you?
I said it because I find typos annoying (and perhaps even anti-intellecutal). Honestly, I can't say I saw much of an "argument" in your original post so no, I wasn't setting out to "win" by using the tactic of proofreading.

    So, if we were to find out that Bush did kill babies in an act of genocide, would you say that it's unfair compare him to other genocidal leaders because "America has something in common with EVERY country in SOME way?" (note, Bush does not kill babies in an act of genocide, as I know some of you would miss the point).
As much as I love dealing with hypotheticals, I'll ignore it and say that MY point was lumping America in with Iran and China as you did in your post four days ago seemed like more of that logical fallacy people call "appeal to emotion" more than an actual ARGUMENT. Same people would probably say "Bush killin' babies" is more of the same and worthy of the same response.

    The point is that the death penalty is a pretty big thing to have in common with Iran and China. This is way above the realm of "both countries eat a lot of rice."
Now why did you pick Iran and China? Singapore executes a greater percentage of their population, but I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that "It feels wonderful to have common ground with Singapore" just didn't have the ring you were looking for.

    It comes quite close to "not listening to you, America, America, America, I don't care what you say, America" ground. I don't care how great this country is, there are some major things needing change, like the death penalty, and saying "well, Iran is worse" does nothing to help your argument.
I don't believe I HAD an actual argument. I was just saying that I prefer America to Iran. I'm only speaking for myself here. I can't say I got from your post of four days ago that you actually presented an actual ARGUMENT against the death penalty - just a lot of appeal to emotion and borderline trolling. That was MY point.

    Unfortunately, they prove nothing. You simply cannot prove whether the death penalty is effective at preventing homocides or not, and many have tried.
I wasn't trying to prove anything - I tried to say "hey, here are some numbers, do your own research and come to your own conclusions" but apparently that was read differently by more than a few people. Oh, well.

    Originally posted by messenoir
    The death penalty costs more then life in prison, lawyers are generally working pro bono and are overworked, innocent people have definitely been executed (two people that are already executed have been shown to be innocent this year alone), there is no humane way to execute someone, and unfortunately, overzealous prosecutors do break quite a few rules when prosecuting death penalty cases.

    Also, Governors in states such as mine (Missouri) are not about to ever give a stay on an execution fearing political backlash. How many times have you seen a quote such as this "we do not want to delay the proces anymore for the family of the victim." That is not making a decision based on evidence, that is making a decison based on emotion and politics, both of which have no place in the death penalty process.

    Twice this year, the board that reviews death penalty cases in Missouri recommended stays because of prosecutor misconduct and both times the Governor refused to provide the stay.

    The last death penalty case in Missouri involved major problems including multiple story changes by the star witness and major problems with his story. There was atl east enough problems that the case should have been reviewed, but the Governor said he didn't want to further the process and wanted the victim's family to have closure. Again, this is not making a decision based on evidence, but rather politics.

    For my part, I do not feel it is possible to take emotion and politics out of the death penalty process, which is one more reason to do away with it. When you are talking about taking someone's life, an irreversable action, there should be zero question of guilt, and I just do not feel we can ever have zero question of guilt in such an emotional issue.
Say, now maybe if you'd made THIS your first post instead of what you gave us four days ago, this thread could have turned out so differently/so much better.

I hope I have clarified my position!



CRZ
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2750 days
Last activity: 2478 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.34

    To play devils advocate, why should the will of the people dictate what governments do? Governments are charged with doing what is right, not popular.


That's a fair question Doc, and I believe that is true to some extent. If the idea were that majority rules all the time, then we would be better off having a direct democracy rather than electing people to make decisions for us and on our behalf. On the other hand, in any consensual government the political leaders must, by definition, be responsive to the citizens in large part. Where you draw the line depends obviously.

But my point was that pointing to all the countries that have abolished the death penalty is only meaningful insofar as it points to a worldwide consensus against the death penalty. Obviously if the majority of some of those countries support the death penalty, then there is no consensus against capital punishment, and people are being asked to accept as meaningful the decisions of the ruling class of another country...if that makes any sense to anyone other than me.

    Originally posted by messenoir
    "and there have been times when innocent people hve been executed, so if they're locked up we have the option of later releasing them if they turn out to be innocent."


Can you please point me in the direction of accounts of someone who was executed and then found irrefutably innocent?


    Also, it's pretty ignorant to say "well, because America is better then Iran, our *insert immoral activity here* is okay and theirs is wrong." It comes quite close to "not listening to you, America, America, America, I don't care what you say, America" ground.


And your insistence on equating two things with only superficial similarities (our use of the death penalties and those other "bad" countries' use of the death penalty) comes quite close to ridiculously comparing the US and Iran to make a strawman point about our use of the death penalty.


    Unfortunately, they prove nothing. You simply cannot prove whether the death penalty is effective at preventing homocides or not, and many have tried.

    It is simply not a valid argument to use when discussing the death penalty.


So it isn't valid to believe that there is causation involved in the incredibly clear trend of the murder rate decreasing while executions increase, but it is valid to dismiss that view out of hand without offering any proof of your own?


    The death penalty costs more then life in prison


And speaking of things you cannot prove...


    That is not making a decision based on evidence


Which would be fair since decisions have been made "based on the evidence" many times over a period years before these types of decisions reach the governor's desk. While I think the governor has a right and a responsibility to consider a person's potential innocence, I would say that a jury of twelve serving over a period of weeks is more qualified to make that decision than is one governor who has to attend to a myriad of other responsibilities.
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 55 min.
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.32
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Can you please point me in the direction of accounts of someone who was executed and then found irrefutably innocent?


This took me all of three minutes to Google. 10 minutes if you count the amount of time it took me to post it (and answer the phone while doing it).

Reasonable Doubts: Is the U.S. Executing Innocent People?




    This report marks the first national effort to document and expose cases of people executed despite compelling evidence of their innocence since executions resumed in the U.S. in 1977.

    ....

    The report highlights the cases of 16 individuals who were executed by the states of Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Texas, and Virginia in the face of exculpatory evidence and evidence of rights violations.


And just FYI, from the Death Penalty Information Center


Recent Numbers Nationally:
Released nationally from death rows because of innocence since 1971: 113
Total number of people executed between 1976 and May 3, 2004: 909
Number of people executed for every person released for innocence: 8.44
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 14 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.39
I usually stay out of the politics forum because I can not articulate my thoughts well so if this doesn't make a lot of sense, I apologize ahead of time.

I just don't understand the fascination with always claiming the Death Penalty isn't a deterrent, and because of that, it should be abolished. Since when did ANY sentence handed out by a court change from being a punishment for the crime committed, to a deterrent for other people?

If somebody gets caught breaking into a house, is their sentence handed out in an effort to make others NOT break into houses? Or is it handed out to PUNISH the person who broke in?

And messenoir, while I admire your ability to forgive murderers, part of me wonders if your wife was raped, tortured and murdered, or your infant, if you would be so forgiving. And, before you say that's a hypothetical and not a valid argument, I am sure if you compare the number of people who have been raped and murdered, to even the most generous number of people who MAY have been wrongly executed, the statistics are more in favor of you or somebody you know/love being a victim.

And, if we DID perfect the process (which I believe is sufficient) to suit your need for it being fool proof, would you support it then, since no 'innocent' people would be killed? Or is that another excuse to NOT support Capital Punishment?

I'm sorry, but a black not having a jury of all blacks doesn't mean he/she didn't commit the crime.

An ALLEGATION of police wrong doing, doesn't mean that the person didn't commit the crime.

Incompetent legal counsel doesn't mean the person DIDN'T commit the crime.

Having one eyewitness to a murder and not a dozen, doesn't mean the person DIDN'T commit the crime.

I just don't understand the worry of people who will go far out of their way to try to let EVERY convict out on a technicality, and not accept that a jury did their duty, a judge did his/her duty, and all the appeals processes were exhausted, before somebody gets executed.

Trust me, if somebody hurt one of my children, and I KNEW they did it, either through eyewitness accounts, or my children letting me know, it wouldn't be up to the state, I would take care of the bastard myself. But, that's just me. And, before you say it, yes, I would go to jail, and if sentenced, accept a death penalty, if it meant the person who harmed my loved one was unable to draw a single breath.





TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    If somebody gets caught breaking into a house, is their sentence handed out in an effort to make others NOT break into houses? Or is it handed out to PUNISH the person who broke in?


If revenge is your only motivation, than what's the point? I think prevent further crime is about, say, infinitely more important than avenging past offenses.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 14 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.39
I am not the government. I said that if somebody in my family was harmed, and I KNEW who did it, I would kill that person myself.

However, where the government is concerned,when did the purpose of SENTENCING A PERSON CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW, stop being the guilty person's punishment, and the public at large's deterrent?

To ME it wouldn't be about PREVENTING further crime. However, I am pretty sure one could argue that somebody who is capable of killing, or raping, or torturing and murdering a person, just MIGHT be able/willing to do it again.

Jail doesn't deter people from murdering. If it did, there would be no murder in the country, it's not like we don't have PLENTY of jails sitting overcrowded, so obviously the 'deterrent' factor is complete BS.

(edited by StaggerLee on 6.12.05 1854)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.35
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Jail doesn't deter people from murdering. If it did, there would be no murder in the country, it's not like we don't have PLENTY of jails sitting overcrowded, so obviously the 'deterrent' factor is complete BS.

    (edited by StaggerLee on 6.12.05 1854)


I agree in so far as most murders are crimes of passion, of the moment, not well-thought-out, calculated crimes. There is a segement who might be deterred, but it is small. For other crimes, I think it is a deterent. I don't know the percentages, but the number of people in jail whose crimes can be connected to drugs likely skews the population.



Perception is reality
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter








Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2446 days
Last activity: 2333 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.43
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Jail doesn't deter people from murdering. If it did, there would be no murder in the country, it's not like we don't have PLENTY of jails sitting overcrowded, so obviously the 'deterrent' factor is complete BS.

    (edited by StaggerLee on 6.12.05 1854)


Oh come on! Nobody is claiming that it acts as an ABSOLUTE deterent. That's like saying drunken driving laws don't stop people from getting loaded and going for a spin because people still drink and drive.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 14 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.39
EXACTLY! Laws don't serve as deterrents! Punishments don't serve as deterrents.

But, as a PUNISHMENT, I think it's acceptable.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.14
I've never bought the deterrent thing at all. First of all, there's a loose (at best) correlation in those graphs, and you can interpret that data a lot of different ways. Our murder rate was highest in the late 80s when we had the death penalty and were executing lot of people. And murders have gone down across the board - using Texas as an example is disingenious. I could use New York (where we have the penalty in theory only) where the murder rates gone down just as much. Scewing graphs and statistics to fit preconcieved notion shows nothing.

My argument against the Death Penalty being a deterrent is basically as follows:

1. Is the Death Penalty really THAT much worse than spending the rest of your life in a box? When I think about committing crimes, I don't think about the lethal injection, I think about the show OZ and decide it's not worth it.

2. In terms of crimes of passion, is that really what's going through your head to keep you from pulling the trigger? However, the most convincing one for me is the following:

3. If you're living the kind of life where you kill people, chances are the Death Penalty is the LEAST likely way you're going to die. If you're a drug dealer or gangster, or otherwise bad dude, there's probably a lot of people gunning for you, and you're probably in a lot of violent situations. If dying were really that much of a deterrent, 90% of the people on death row had that deterrent anyway.

My bottom line on the Death Penalty is basically this: It's not a choice between killing the guys and letting them go, as pro-Death Penalty people seem to always try and imply. It's between killing them and throwing them into a box for the rest of their lives. Really, the Death Penelty isn't THAT much worse. While I'm not totally against the Death Penelty on moral grounds, the fact that I don't think it prevents crime, and it's a neglegable additional punishment is enough for me to say "is it really worth it?" I mean, 1000 people have been excecuted. Is having them spend the rest of their life in a box instead that awful of a price to pay for making sure we don't kill an innocent man?



Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-
Euripides


Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 360 days
Last activity: 321 days
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    My bottom line on the Death Penalty is basically this: It's not a choice between killing the guys and letting them go, as pro-Death Penalty people seem to always try and imply. It's between killing them and throwing them into a box for the rest of their lives.

Plus, I don't know if it's true, but I've heard that it costs less to keep a person in prison for the rest of their life than it does to execute a person, because of all the automatic appeals built into the death row system.

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html



In the real world, WWE believes that no matter what our race, religious creed or ethnic background in America, we all share the common bond of being Americans. American-Arabs are a part of the fabric of America, and they should be embraced by all of us.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 243 days
Last activity: 237 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.24

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    While I think the governor has a right and a responsibility to consider a person's potential innocence, I would say that a jury of twelve serving over a period of weeks is more qualified to make that decision than is one governor who has to attend to a myriad of other responsibilities.


See George Ryan of Illinois, Nobel Prize nominee, and most corrupt governor in Illinois history.



As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004
OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005
OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005
OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005 "I've lost a cruiserweight"
Lexus
Bierwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.26
This is where American punditry gets very muddled. States laws and federal laws differ from one another greatly, and often issued will be 'handed down' to the states themselves to sort out. Not every state in the country has the death penalty, and not every state which has is uses it profusely. I'm not certain, but I would say that the amount of executions in Texas, Florida, and the ole' home state of V(f'n)A are probably much higher than in New York or Maryland. However, rather than point out which states are the ones executing prisoners, and in precisely which cases you mean wherein an executed man was later found to be innocent, It sounds more and more like baseless bashing of your homeland. The way you put it, it is entirely feesible that an executed man who was tried and convicted for the murders of 11 really only killed 7. He still would've recieved the death penalty. Furthermore, when you compare the amount of homicides per year to the 1000 documented executions that have taken place in the U.S. since 1976, it's pretty damned evident that not every killer in the U.S. is put to death.

These men aren't victims, they make them. They aren't martyrs to a cause, their cause is to kill. I'm no advocate for 'an eye for an eye', but I know that if I have the motivation to go out and kill somebody, I'll be motivated enough to do it without getting caught. You know, like Arson, which will burn away all forensic evidence linking me to the crime, or just buy a .3006 from my local Wal-Mart and pop a scope on it.

In closing, they deserve what the get because they were sloppy enough to get caught. God kills people every day but nobody condemns him, and as my money says, in God we Trust. Relax, enjoy your life, and relish that nobody has killed you yet.



Hold nothing sacred and you'll never be dissapointed. Especially not this statement.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 107 days
Last activity: 107 days
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.61
Yeah, who cares if somebody was convicted of killing 11 people when he only really killed 7. Whoever was responsible for the other four murders was smart enough to pin the blame on somebody else, so they deserve to walk.


And innoncent people deserve what they get because they were unfortunante enough to get blamed, right? Besides, they were probably guilty of something.



That's some pretty ridiculous bullshit you're spouting right there.



Pandas are absurd.
Life is absurd.
Life is Pandas.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.73
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Sami al-Arian acquitted
Next thread: Red Cross does not have access to all US prisoners
Previous thread: Federal Marshalls kill man who claimed he had a bomb on a plane.
(627 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
On the one hand... fear bottles up a lot of things. It's easy to say "Well, well, I'd say something even if I were in danger 'cause I'm brave like that!" and it's another thing entirely to be able to do it. However...
- Nate The Snake, Why I Don't Trust CNN (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - US executed 1,000 person (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.139 seconds.