RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime

RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 10:55:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: MrrPete As usual there's more to the story. This is an indictment of those who work in the system not doing their job. Overzealous prosicutors using the justice system for theri own private agenda. [sarcasm] Yes, the presence of overzealous prosecutors validate the murder of an innocent person. [/sarcasm] On the other hand, if the death penalty is outlawed, prosecutors fucking up wont result in the state sponsored murder of an innocent person. The overzealous and incompetent prosecutors will NEVER, EVER kill another human being. quote: In my opinion the death penalty works fine as a deterent to crime The person put to death will NEVER, NEVER, EVER commit another crime. THAT's the deterent. [sarcasm] Even more so, the innocent person executed will never EVER commit a crime in the first place. [/sarcasm] Point taken. And TheHeretic, it is an emotional position. The argument that there could possibly be a rational reason why an innocent person should be put to death by the state is emotional, not rational, and is indicative of the same sort of mindset that suicide bombers or people flying jets into buildings have. The rationale is that the ends justify the means, no matter how reprehensible those means are. I made the point on another thread that one of the main problems Christians have with Muslims is the similarity of their worldviews and beliefs. The same could be said about people who support the death penalty for people who murder people. Your worldviews are a lot more in concurrence with theirs than they are different. Sinergy Added an e, deleted an s Sinergy, I'm sure Richard "The Night Stalker" Ramirez would agree with you. When are they going to gas that prick anyway? He's in San Quenton, right?

juliaoceania -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 10:56:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I argued that an innocent person being killed invalidates the value of state sponsored murder for the body politic. Sinergy And I reject both your position, and your use of propagandist terminology. Your premise is flawed. Would the incarceration of the wrong car thief invalidate prisons? Would a sharp word to the wrong unruly ___ invalidate the authority of a parent? This is nothing but a cheap appeal to emotion. Any person convicted wrongfully can always clear their name as long as they have life in their body to attempt to do so. To take that life means that justice is irrevocably lost to the innocent person that was wrongfully murdered by the state... where there is life there is hope. Your examples of lesser crimes and their penalties do not apply because a person can decide whether to fight the charge or not. They are not deprived of their right to fight the charge against them by snuffing their life. In essense there are two things taken from the innocent person wrongfully convicted and executed, their life and their good name... and neither of these things can they retrieve if we impose the death penalty... and this is the grossest injustice of them all

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 12:07:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Stuff. Sinergy, I'm sure Richard "The Night Stalker" Ramirez would agree with you. When are they going to gas that prick anyway? He's in San Quenton, right? What exactly does any of this have to do with my post? Sinergy

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 12:39:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Would the incarceration of the wrong car thief invalidate prisons? This is slightly the wrong question. Instead you should have asked: "Would the incarceration of an innocent person invalidate our justice system?" The answer is yes, it would invalidate our justice system. The idea of justice is entirely predicated on fairness, equity, conformity with the truth, and moral rightness. How can you not know that? quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Would a sharp word to the wrong unruly ___ invalidate the authority of a parent? See above. Simpler answer: Yes, the parent's authority has been undermined. The wrong unruly now learns that force can be used arbitrarily. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic This is nothing but a cheap appeal to emotion. I don't think you know what that means. In my view Sinergy was making arguments appealing to Logos and ethos, not pathos.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 12:44:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro In my view Sinergy was making arguments appealing to Logos and ethos, not pathos. Synergy doesn't make arguments. He merely reacts and asks questions. I really wish he would make an original argument sometime, backed up with facts and data, so that we can have something to chew on. It's too easy to cast stones at those who originate, imo.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 12:48:25 PM)
selfbnd411: That just makes him as annoying as Socrates. Maybe we can convince him to drink some poison and thereby repeat some history.

philosophy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 1:47:35 PM)
well, you can always answer my post 120 if you want something to chew on...........

Vendaval -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 1:51:00 PM)
I agree with what SugarMyChurro posted. Sinergy does make arguments appealing to logos and ethos. Pathos is usually a destructive force for an individual and a community. He originates many posts backed up with facts and data that are thought-provoking and require contemplation. IMO, the best part is that he combines piercing intellectual research and questioning with serious ethical considerations and real life experience. quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro In my view Sinergy was making arguments appealing to Logos and ethos, not pathos. Synergy doesn't make arguments. He merely reacts and asks questions. I really wish he would make an original argument sometime, backed up with facts and data, so that we can have something to chew on. It's too easy to cast stones at those who originate, imo.

Vendaval -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 1:54:09 PM)
Absolutely! Or mine in #90 and repeated in #118. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy well, you can always answer my post 120 if you want something to chew on...........

DomKen -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 2:06:58 PM)
Heck if selfbnd411 wanted to deal with something how about explaining how his obsession with incarceration expenses jives with 1 of every 9 trials resulting in the death penalty, appeals and time held in prison are a total waste of government funds since that person was innocent?

juliaoceania -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 2:13:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Heck if selfbnd411 wanted to deal with something how about explaining how his obsession with incarceration expenses jives with 1 of every 9 trials resulting in the death penalty, appeals and time held in prison are a total waste of government funds since that person was innocent? How about the fact that it costs more to execute someone because of the appeals process and the special wings to keep them then it does to just house them in prison for the rest of their natural lives?

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 4:15:55 PM)
[sm=banghead.gif] i have stated my feelings on the death penalty on here before-and i think this will be my last post about is, as i have a headache....but.... the argument that one innocent person may be executed makes no sense to me.....should that happen? absolutely not, and i would hope with dna and other science it will not......would i eliminate the death penalty to avoid this? no way. innocent people die because of police chases....this sucks-do we never chase another armed robber or murderer because of this? innocent people have been killed when police became involved in a stand off with armed felons.....do we not confront these felons and allow them to go on their merry way because of this chance? innocent people die in many ways because of our system of justice is not perfect-and it never will be perfect. innocent people are also murdered by scum of the earth for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. no ones mind is going to change, so i do not know why we debate this on here, but theres my last 2 cents worth anyhow.

philosophy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 4:33:47 PM)
"the argument that one innocent person may be executed makes no sense to me.....should that happen? absolutely not, and i would hope with dna and other science it will not......would i eliminate the death penalty to avoid this? no way. " ok, so in order to protect the majority you are content to allow the state to kill the odd innocent...... "innocent people are also murdered by scum of the earth for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. " .....and by your philosophy innocent people can also be murdered by the state for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. How does this make the state any better than the murdering scum?

SDFemDom4cuck -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 4:45:49 PM)
quote: How about the fact that it costs more to execute someone because of the appeals process and the special wings to keep them then it does to just house them in prison for the rest of their natural lives? Not to argue with you Juliaoceania but "Life in prison" doesn't always mean exactly that. "Life" in prison can sometimes mean as little as 15 or 20 years. For a young offender that can mean they are released at still a relatively young age. What exactly is the cost of their being released to possibly end up murdering someone else? What price do we as a society pay when that occurs? Unfortunately I've been in the middle of this very debate on a very personal level. My link thingy doesn't seem to be working so I'll simply paste the previous post I made on another death penalty thread to explain my opinion of the death penalty. While I understand your point, I am afraid I respectfully disagree. I was at one time a staunch opponent of the death penalty. Even throughout most of the trial of a man who killed 3 members of my family over $7.26 I was speaking out against the death penalty being part of the possible sentencing. I felt that as a human he had to have some redeeming quality and that his being imprisoned for life would be enough of a punishment. The detective and prosecuter sat down with me one day and asked how I would feel if this young man were to eventually get out of prison and commit this same crime to another family. They explained the meaning of a Life sentence in that state. The chances of his actually serving "life" in prison were very slim and he would have gotten out eventually at still a relatively young age. Rather than a clue by four I would compare that moment of comprehension to being hit by a Mack Truck. His death wouldn't bring back my family members, but it would most definitely ensure that no other human would have to endure the heartache we did and still do. Am I saying that some convictions aren't mistaken? No I'm not. Am I saying that every murderer should recieve the death penalty? No I am not. What I am saying is that given the situation I dealt with, the history of the person that committed the murders involved, and the likely hood of it happening again I know that the death penalty was the correct sentence for the individual situation. I was able to spend 15 minutes on the night he was put to death speaking with him. I looked in his eyes and saw no remorse. I listened to him speak of his love for his family and heard not an ounce of regret for those of us that loved Robin, Scott and their unborn child. I heard excuse after excuse of why the crime was committed but not a single word of apology or acknowledgement of what he had done to our family was spoken. I spent a great deal of time in thought the evening before the sentence was carried out as to what my last words would be to this man who had hurt so many people over something so petty. Only 3 words came to mind that I could live the rest of my life having said without regret. "I forgive you." His reaction...He laughed, and said " Well, Good for you" I don't regret saying them, and I don't regret watching him die.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 4:49:19 PM)
I answered that question several times in posts well before 120. I stated that perfection is impossible and the error rate is exceedingly small. I cited the statistics upon which my argument was based, and I provided an example of a case in which a supposedly "innocent" man was executed....only for it to be established that this poster boy for the anti-death penalty crowd was proven to be guilty by DNA evidence. But to bring up yet another example of the perfectionist fallacy...I had surgery once. Complications do happen in surgery--surgeons sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes our bodies don't behave as they should. Sometimes external events, such as a bacterial infection, introduce themselves. My choice was to have the surgery and hope for perfection, or not have the surgery because I was afraid of an irrevocable error being made. I chose to have the surgery. And you know what? The main problem was fixed. There was also a complication in the form of hypertrophic scarring. My skin was just not able to deal with it and I'll have a disfiguring scar forever (in a very concealable place, luckily). Should I be angry or resenful because the results were imperfect? I'm scarred for life, after all. No. I'm happy that 99.97% of my problem was corrected. My life is immeasurably better because of it. I wish I wasn't scarred now, but hey...nothing is perfect. The surgeon did her best, and that's all anyone can ask for. I provided links to all. Never take anyone's word for anything, imo. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy well, you can always answer my post 120 if you want something to chew on...........

philosophy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 4:58:40 PM)
oh come on selfbnd......you're a bright man, surely you realise you have utterly dodged my point. For some medical issues surgery is the only option........there are other options to the death penalty, so you are comparing apples and oranges. It seems to me your argument is based on a simple logical proposition. It is better for a few to suffer for the sake of the majority.......where does that thin end of the wedge lead to, i wonder?

kittinSol -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 4:58:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy ...in addition to the question of how you would feel if the innocent person being killed was you. I look forward to your response. Sinergy I'm not sure why this question seems to work so well for you in debate, Sinergy. It' not hard to answer and the premise is almost annoyingly smug. I support the death penalty. I think some crimes are so heinous as to demand it. My list would be longer than the Government's. This does not mean I support lynch mobs, kangaroo courts, corrupt cops and DA's or every single provision of the Patriot Act. I don't wish to see innocent people locked up for anything. You ask if we (death penalty supporters) would change our minds if we found ourselves on death row for a crime we didn't commit. Let's shrink the analogy a bit. Do you assume I would change my mind about putting armed robbers in prison If I was pulled over on my way to a range and matched a description, with the worst possible outcome? Convictions aren't always based on nothing but personal circumstance, you know. In the hypothetical you raise, I'd fight to the last, exhaust every appeal, scream at the injustice and still believe death was the appropriate punishment for the crime. You argument just went and bit its own tail: how can it be appropriate punishment if it's a crime you didn't commit?

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 5:14:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol You argument just went and bit its own tail: how can it be appropriate punishment if it's a crime you didn't commit? Cant wait to see how TheHeretic and selfbnd411 dodge that question. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 5:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 I provided links to all. Never take anyone's word for anything, imo. The links you provided indicate that the possibility of a mistake is relatively small. The point I am trying to make is that any possibility higher than 0 invalidates a system set up to promote fairness and justice, etc. As philosophy pointed out, where does one draw the line? Somewhere between your percentages and those used by Stalin, Pol Pot, or any of the other lovely Law And Order Dictatorships the world has seen. Now, having drawn that line, what is to prevent the reasonable number of innocent people being murdered by being rationalized from .0021% to .21% to 21% to 210000%. Any percentage of failure can be arbitrarily moved. History tends to support the concept that it will be moved out of expediency by those in charge. As juliaoceania and philosophy pointed out, a person put to death can never reform, can never be found innocent by dna testing, and in my favorite example, can never fall with the One Ring into Mount Doom and save Middle Earth from Sauron. From my perspective, a person has to decide where to place their moral and ethical sensibilities. I do not believe there is any justification ever for a reasoned society to deprive (to borrow a far better man than I's words) life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness from any individual. This may result in a guilty person killing somebody, but it will prevent the Body Politic from murdering an innocent person. Notice in both of these examples somebody dies. Nobody knows whether the guilty person will kill again, but everybody knows that the Body Politic murdered that person. The system is flawed. Killing the innocent makes it more flawed, in my opinion. I dont really have any emotional investment in whether you agree with me or not. Feel free to continue dodging the question or attacking me, but I want to point out that I am a polite, nice, non-violent pacifist who teaches full-contact self defense. From a psychological or emotional standpoint about me, as Zaphod Beeblebrox pointed out, "I have weirder things in my breakfast cereal than the rest of you are." Sinergy

kittinSol -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 6:06:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol You argument just went and bit its own tail: how can it be appropriate punishment if it's a crime you didn't commit? Cant wait to see how TheHeretic and selfbnd411 dodge that question. Sinergy If this wasn't such an important debate, I'd be tempted to make a joke about them losing a point. Then again, I just made that joke: this is the kind of sophistry death penalty proponents use all the time. PS: Oh! And how I love how you use the expression 'the body politic'! I seldom encounter it. Thank you for having a large language register :-)

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875