# Time to end the death penalty



## JohnG (Sep 21, 2011)

Another baffling, horrific death penalty story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp

Advocates for the death penalty see it as just punishment and a deterrent for the most heinous crimes. And, in theory, it is.

But in practice death penalty trials and administration are no more accurate than any other human bureaucratic activity, which leaves them prone to numerous errors. Sometimes, as is alleged in the Georgia case above, these errors arise from malice or intent, sometimes from simple bungling. 

As we've discussed before, Illinois suspended the death penalty partly because of a large number of exonerations from DNA evidence (mentioned in the above article) must give us pause. With 12 million in population, Illinois is no piddling state; it includes the city of Chicago and represents 4% of the US population. Time for a national moratorium. 

Illinois story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/01/31/national/main155090.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/01/ ... 5090.shtml)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 21, 2011)

Based on the multiple witness' own testimony of being threatened by the police, it's a scandal that Troy isn't actually a free man. The fact he is scheduled to be executed today, after such compelling evidence is horrific.

On the general point of death penalty - totally agree, John.


----------



## sbkp (Sep 21, 2011)

JohnG @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Advocates for the death penalty see it as just punishment and a deterrent for the most heinous crimes. And, in theory, it is.



In theory, but not in practice. Homicide rates tend to go up after well publicized executions. It has exactly the opposite effect that people want it to have. Capital punishment remains purely a relic of the dark ages.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Sep 21, 2011)

I may regret wandering into this but... Whilst I agree this case appears to an absolute travesty where it's more important for a man to die than a few policemen to go without their pensions, I remain unconvinced by the idea that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Very few crimes that result in the death penalty involve a situation where someone takes the time out to rationally consider the consequences of their actions.

Also, and I may just be being a pinko lefty liberal hippy fantasist, but I think any nation state that puts its citizens to death, for whatever reason, should be ashamed of itself.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

I will not rehash it here but Dennis Prager, who I do not usually agree with, destroyed all my arguments against the death penalty intellectually in his book "Think A Second Time" and I was forced to confront the fact that my arguments against it were strictly emotional. 

That said, this case smells bad., The death penalty should be rarely used and only for the most heinous and with guiltiness that can be proven by overwhelming evidence and when there is any real doubt raised, like in this case, cancelled.


----------



## sbkp (Sep 21, 2011)

How is the desire for revenge not strictly emotional? As far as I can tell, that's the only actual merit (if it can be called that) one could ascribe to the death penalty.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

sbkp @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> How is the desire for revenge not strictly emotional? As far as I can tell, that's the only actual merit (if it can be called that) one could ascribe to the death penalty.



Lust for revenge and desire for justice are not the same thing, emotionally or intellectually. Read Prager's book. Even if you reach your present conclusions, it is always good to rethink our ideas.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Sep 21, 2011)

I would be interested to hear an argument in favour of the death penalty that could be backed up by evidence. I am always prepared to have my mind changed by evidence.


----------



## Ed (Sep 21, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> sbkp @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > How is the desire for revenge not strictly emotional? As far as I can tell, that's the only actual merit (if it can be called that) one could ascribe to the death penalty.
> ...



The only good rational reasons for the death penalty...

1. As a deterrent (in theory)
2. Saves money (in theory) because you dont have to keep them in prison

My issue is the fact that so many innocent people risk being executed, I do not feel that is worth it. I also think learning why people commit crimes and how we can prevent them in the future should be the focus.


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 21, 2011)

JohnG @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Advocates for the death penalty see it as just punishment and a deterrent for the most heinous crimes. And, in theory, it is.



A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

FBI data shows that all 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate.

The murder rate in non-Death Penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in States with the Death Penalty.

The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issu ... deterrence


----------



## sbkp (Sep 21, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> sbkp @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > How is the desire for revenge not strictly emotional? As far as I can tell, that's the only actual merit (if it can be called that) one could ascribe to the death penalty.
> ...



"Justice" is a culturally defined set of beliefs - naturally subjective. So I don't see a way to support the death penalty that doesn't just boil down to "because I think we should." As it exists now, it is righteousness with the backing of law.

But empirically, the death penalty (a) doesn't deter crime and (b) is subject to error (of the worst kind!). As a mechanism of justice, I see no rational need for it.

As to Prager's book... Its page on Amazon says various things about it being grounded in monotheism and morals and such. Is that an accurate characterization of it? I'm all for the notion of rethinking. And I also enjoy discussing the mechanics of faith. But when it comes to people justifying policy in terms of their religious beliefs, I've only ever seen it come down to the circle of faith justifying itself.


----------



## sbkp (Sep 21, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> JohnG @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Advocates for the death penalty see it as just punishment and a deterrent for the most heinous crimes. And, in theory, it is.
> ...



While true, that's not actually good evidence against the death penalty. It's possible that those rates are higher because of other reasons (and may have been higher before the death penalty was in effect). It's like an experiment without a control group. Still, there is evidence that the homicide rate changes when the death penalty is introduced to a legal system. And it usually goes up. That "longitudinal" evidence is what's really damning to the death penalty.


----------



## midphase (Sep 21, 2011)

"2. Saves money (in theory) because you dont have to keep them in prison "

Actually that is not true, as a matter of fact, a ballot initiative here in California aims to get rid of the death penalty based on the idea that it's way too costly compared to life in prison.

Here are some numbers:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2011)

> Read Prager's book



I'd prefer death by torture.

What a stupid dick that man is. He's a walking commercial for anti-Semitism, with a unique talent for smug, infuriatingly false arguments on the wrong side of every issue (which of course is why he's on the radio: to provoke). This is the guy who claims the reports of deaths by second hand smoke are a "colossal lie."

And this deep insight is yet another perfect example of what a douche he is. First of all...well, first of all F You Dennis Prager.

But after that, first of all what a perfectly stupid thing to say - that the only arguments against capital punishment are emotional. The only arguments against executing people wrongly are emotional in that case!

News flash: values are emotional. And my biggest objection to capital punishment is exactly that: it's disgusting and uncivilized, and I don't want my government - which in our country is the people, including me - killing people. It's not justice, it's descending...well, not to the same level as the hideous crimes people are sentenced for, but it's descending to an uncivilized level that I simply don't feel good about; it only compounds the tragedy.

Second, in addition to being a textbook asshole, Prager is wrong that the only arguments against the death penalty are emotional. People have posted them in this thread, starting with John's first post. (How can one execute a man if there's the slightest bit of doubt?!)

Next, Kays beat me to it. We spend much more incarcerating prisoners than we do on education in California already - which of course is bonkers! - but then to compound that by having the death penalty? That's insane.

Those without the capital get the punishment.

Oh, and did I mention that I don't particularly care for Dennis Prager?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2011)

Also, I'll never understand why the same people who believe that everything the government does (especially if it's helping people) is an invasion of their personal freedom...are the ones most in favor of that same government executing people.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

Thou shalt not kill. If anything is true, this is true.
All the other arguments are an unfortunate diversion.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 21, 2011)

A related question, but from a different angle: what is the argument for keeping someone in jail for the rest of their natural life with no chance/hope of release?


----------



## nikolas (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm against capital punishing... I'm very annoyed to the fact that some people think that someone will NEVER change, thus we can get rid of them! It's so awful...


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 21, 2011)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> A related question, but from a different angle: what is the argument for keeping someone in jail for the rest of their natural life with no chance/hope of release?



Taking away the ability for that person to murder an innocent person again.


----------



## sbkp (Sep 21, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> It's not justice, it's descending...well, not to the same level as the hideous crimes people are sentenced for



Maybe. Maybe not.

I think if you described it in terms of a crime, you'd have to call it first degree murder, wouldn't you? It is deliberate and premeditated.

And prison in general needs a reworking. I'm not saying it needs to be like summer camp. But when I read comments on a web page or hear people talk about how someone accused (accused!) of a crime is going to "get it" or "understand it" once in prison (clearly referring to the violence, even rape, they're likely to be subjected to), then something is clearly out of whack. First of all, being sentenced to prison should NOT be a sentence to being raped, etc. And second of all, WTF?!?!? If people want that kind of treatment for crimes, let them travel back in time and enjoy the "good old days." It's the 21st century. It's time to make some progress.

And I'll only say briefly that I was disgusted – truly disgusted – by the response of the audience (or perhaps "mob") at the Reagan library when they cheered Rick Perry's position/record/whatever regarding the death penalty. That's what I would expect to hear in an ancient Roman gladiatorial arena.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > A related question, but from a different angle: what is the argument for keeping someone in jail for the rest of their natural life with no chance/hope of release?
> ...


Something like that, yeah... that'd be it.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 21, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > A related question, but from a different angle: what is the argument for keeping someone in jail for the rest of their natural life with no chance/hope of release?
> ...



Ok, but I thought the primary objective of prison (certainly is in the UK) was reform and rehabilitation? How does the above square with that?


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

sbkp @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not justice, it's descending...well, not to the same level as the hideous crimes people are sentenced for
> ...



See? Don't do that! That doesn't make it the same level. It just leaves it wrong.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> RiffWraith @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen Baysted @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> ...



Because "primary" doesn't mean "only."


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 21, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > RiffWraith @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> ...



Sure - that's absolutely correct and true. I agree. But, in the case of say a serial killer (there are some infamous cases here in the UK from the 1960s) who has definitely committed heinous crimes and has been sentenced to 'life' imprisonment with no hope of release, why simply keep them in prison at great expense to the tax payer? What is the point ? (I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's an important question that will arise if the death penalty is abolished where it is extant.)


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

I'll skip the quotes in the interest of space... 
Stephen... I'm not sure what argument you're making now... is this about relative expense of killing him versus not? Or rehabilitating him versus just holding him? You lost me.
But at the risk of jumping ahead... 
Relative expense of killing him versus not is irrelevant, for me. 
And the risk reward of rehabilitating a serial killer is not compelling, for me.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Thou shalt not kill. If anything is true, this is true.
> All the other arguments are an unfortunate diversion.



The correct translation is Thou Shalt Not Murder. If a guy breaks into your condo and tries to kill your kid and you kill him, you have not violated a commandment. If a soldier kills an enemy combatant he has not violated a commandment.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2011)

> why simply keep them in prison at great expense to the tax payer?



Because it's the least awful of the two alternatives.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> > Read Prager's book
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As usual, you attack the person making the argument rather than successfully rebutting the argument, which of course you cannot do if you won't even read the argument.

I am not a big fan of who Prager has become but he is always more thoughtful in print than on radio and at the time he wrote that particular book he had not yet become as much of a knee jerk reactionary as he has since.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 21, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> I'll skip the quotes in the interest of space...
> Stephen... I'm not sure what argument you're making now... is this about relative expense of killing him versus not? Or rehabilitating him versus just holding him? You lost me.
> But at the risk of jumping ahead...
> Relative expense of killing him versus not is irrelevant, for me.
> And the risk reward of rehabilitating a serial killer is not compelling, for me.



Sort of chap - and you also make a damn good point! Mostly I'm trying to get a sense of what the *effective* difference is between death and say whole of life solitary confinement. I'm not sure, philosophically, that the answer is entirely cut and dry, though it might appear to be at first blush. And that's the problem I think. For us in the UK it's all (mostly) hypothetical since we don't have the death penalty, although we do have a fairly substantial movement now building momentum for its reintroduction. But for you guys, it's not hypothetical of course.

Cheers!


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 21, 2011)

Out of words about this...... . 

Not only one evidence, but only assumptions?! Or am I informed wrong?


----------



## ozmorphasis (Sep 21, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > If a soldier kills an enemy combatant he has not violated a commandment.



...and in 1692, if the powers that be determined an individual to be a witch, they could (did) inflict peine forte et dure, in which stones were piled on a persons chest until he could no longer breathe.

The fact that we don't have the answers (the cure for a murderer's willingness to kill, a fullproof method of assessing guilt, etc), doesn't mean that we should give in to the easy (primitive) way out. 

The burden is still on us to absolutely avoid any additional wrongdoing, and from both a physical reality and a philosophical one, there is no action with less opportunity for correction than irrevocably terminating someone's life against their will.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
--Ghandi
O


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2011)

"As usual," Jay?

I attack the idiot and his stupid argument, at least the way you presented it.

But yes, it's not a secret that I can't stand that guy.

******

http://www.thenation.com/article/163522 ... troy-davis


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 21, 2011)

Too many innocent people end up being killed which is why the death penalty is wrong. But Government is the answer to everything and knows what's best for the serfs and peasants..

On the other hand many times justice is carried out in other ways that go on unpublicized, which is what the courts and victims survivors prefer. Happens all of the time.
Simply contact a street representative of the dominant gang that rules that certain facility, give 50% down, and 50% when the job is done, and the underpaid " guards " often enjoy helping in such activites.

There's a saying, that many of the chaps on Death Row are innocent because they're still alive.

You guys should have more faith in our Correctional Facilities. They're funded by the Feds, owned by former politicians, who absolutely love welfares' fatherless millions.
Even Hollywood Celebrities who promote " GreenPeace " and other warm and fuzzy feel good organizations get a piece of the action the Feds created.

Check out Bob Barkers accessorries. Wonder how many guys have been killed wearing his " enviromentally friendly " prison uniforms, or disolvable toothbrushes....

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... PmDij8w_xQ

But Dont forget to Have Your Pets Spayed Or Neutered........................


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

I realized, Jay, that "kill" was vague and inaccurate. It was a calculated risk. I miscalculated.
Like Prager, you've now made points which are valid, but only helpful if you beg your argument.
I'll beg mine. Capital punishment is murder, so when a guy breaks into my house (I moved since you were here.) and I beat his brains in, that I have killed but haven't committed murder is irrelevant.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> "As usual," Jay?
> 
> I attack the idiot and his stupid argument, at least the way you presented it.
> 
> But yes, it's not a secret that I can't stand that guy.



Wasn't a secret before you said it.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

Here's some Prager around the same time the book came out.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennispr ... page/full/

I cannot believe this persuaded anyone, much less Jay, to reverse position. Yeah, I didn't read the book, but I'm inclined to think as Nick that it would just be a bad blood pressure experience.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Sep 21, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> I realized, Jay, that "kill" was vague and inaccurate. It was a calculated risk. I miscalculated.
> Like Prager, you've now made points which are valid, but only helpful if you beg your argument.
> I'll beg mine. Capital punishment is murder, so when a guy breaks into my house (I moved since you were here.) and I beat his brains in, that I have killed but haven't committed murder is irrelevant.



I'm not sure arguing over the cultural and linguistic semantics of a 2,000 year old book is going to help a great deal here.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

TheUnfinished @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > I realized, Jay, that "kill" was vague and inaccurate. It was a calculated risk. I miscalculated.
> ...


We're not.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> "As usual," Jay?
> 
> I attack the idiot and his stupid argument, at least the way you presented it.
> 
> ...



Once again, calling a person and his argument "stupid" does not rebut it for anyone other than a person who already agrees.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Here's some Prager around the same time the book came out.
> 
> http://townhall.com/columnists/dennispr ... page/full/
> 
> I cannot believe this persuaded anyone, much less Jay, to reverse position. Yeah, I didn't read the book, but I'm inclined to think as Nick that it would just be a bad blood pressure experience.



I did indeed find those arguments persuasive to the degree that it changed my opinion. I applaud you for reading it with an open mind and if it did not persuade you, it did not persuade you.

Once again, I don't approve of the amount of executions a state like Texas does but in between too many and none is a wide swath and "reserved for the truly horrendous, rare, and highly proven" is the standard that I advocate.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

TheUnfinished @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > I realized, Jay, that "kill" was vague and inaccurate. It was a calculated risk. I miscalculated.
> ...



Definitions matter. Killing and murdering are not the same thing.If you believe capital punishment is justifiable killing you may feel one way about it while if you believe it is sanctioned murder you may well feel another way.


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 21, 2011)

One problem with the justice system is we are too easy on people. The death penalty is letting people off the hook for what they've done. Sure they're probably scared and depressed before being put to death but then once they're gone then what? Back to the dark abyss of nothing from whence they came. What kind of punishment is that? Non existence is often(but not always) an upgrade from being bum raped. What we need to do is remove the death penalty and bring back torture. I think the answer lies somewhere in Dante's Inferno. We need prisons with certain levels.

Circle 1 would be limbo. This level is for small crimes and people who seem guilty of crime but we aren't sure and threw them in there because they just kinda seemed a little suspicious. Maybe their skin was suspiciously dark or something.

As you get deeper into the levels the crimes and punishment incrementally get worse. Think of the energy savings having the fires and ash of hell powering generators. Yeah, it's not green energy but shhhhh just don't tell the liberals. 

The 9th circle is for the most heinous offenders: hippies, college kids who had just slightly too much weed tucked into the seating of their Honda Civic, and the marketing team behind 'Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star'.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Sep 21, 2011)

Is there an ignore function on this forum?


----------



## Ed (Sep 21, 2011)

Am I right in thinking only Jay is supporting the death penalty in this thread?

Has he actually given a single rationale for it yet?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

Ed @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Am I right in thinking only Jay is supporting the death penalty in this thread?
> 
> Has he actually given a single rationale for it yet?



Brian beat me to it.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

Ed @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Am I right in thinking only Jay is supporting the death penalty in this thread?
> 
> Has he actually given a single rationale for it yet?



Not answering for Jay of course.
I linked to an article a few posts up. It's not the book Jay referred to, but it is the same guy around the same time, so it's likely a decent summation.


----------



## Ed (Sep 21, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Ed @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Am I right in thinking only Jay is supporting the death penalty in this thread?
> ...



Just started to read... Oh my wow... Jay finds this guy convincing?! I fear for Jay's sanity.. quite honestly..

Just a quick looksi:



> Over the years I have offered many arguments for capital punishment for murder:
> 
> 1. It is a cosmic injustice to allow a murderer to keep his life.



What the heck is "cosmic" injustice? :lol: 



> 2. Killing murderers is society's only way to teach how terrible murder is.



So much wrong with one sentence. First, he is claiming that in order to teach how murder is wrong, they are going to have to kill some people.... :| Second, it says its the "_only way_", yet I can think of various better ways right off the top of my head. Apparently this guy is so biased or idiotic he can't even imagine a better solution, but wait... he doesnt even say the death penalty is the best way, he says its the "_only way_"! This means he can't even imagine *any *alternatives either! 



> If murderers all got 10 years in prison and thieves all got 20 years in prison, that would be society's way of saying that thievery is worse than murder.



What on earth is this guy on about? First this inconsistent punishment he refers to happens all the ime. You can go jail for far longer for fraud, killing no one, than you can be for, say, armed robbery... where you can be out far quicker. he also appears to be giving us a false choice, why is his alternative to the death penalty in his example only giving them 10 years? If thats not what he means, then the example is useless. My main reason for being against the death penalty is because you can always let someone out of jail due to new evidence but you cannot bring them back from the dead. 



> 3. It can, if widely enacted, deter some murders.



Sure... who on earth is arguing it wouldnt deter "some" murders? The fact is it does not seem to deter murders enough to warrent the argument that it _is _a deterrent.

The fact is that plenty of people have been executed that turned out to be probably innocent and over a hundred cases that I know of where those on death row have been freed on new evidence that came to light. If the whole US had the death penalty for every muder conviction which is what Prager wants, statistically you'd be putting to death a LOT of innocent people . I sure can't live with that, apparently this guy can. 




> The most common objection opponents offer against capital punishment is that innocents may be executed.
> 
> My answer has always been that this is so rare (I do not know of a proved case of mistaken execution in America in the last 50 years) that society must be prepared to pay that terrible price.



Nonsence, he is either lying or ignorant and he wants you to be as well. 

"_Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed, Judge Says"_
- New York Times - 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/natio ... 8b&ei=5070

"_How Many Innocent Inmates Are Executed?"_
- American Bar Association - 1997:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... thpen.html

And with that i cant be bothered to deal with any more of it. You're welcome


----------



## sbkp (Sep 21, 2011)

That article is straight up nonsense.

Point #1 it makes: "It is a cosmic injustice to allow a murderer to keep his life."

Translated: Capital punishment is the right thing to do because it is the _right_ thing to do.

As an argument, it begs the question - all that sort of thing. But as a statement of belief, it's just righteousness. And that's emotional. Pure and simple.

Point #2: Punishment for murder should be worse than punishment for other, less egregious things.

I don't disagree with that. But it's not an argument for a particular punishment. Absent #1, this is irrelevant.

Point #3: It's a deterrent.

Except for the fact that it isn't.

Point #4 (the new one he adds in this article): If you believe in due process (specifically that evidence used in a trial must be obtained legally), then you have to support capital punishment. Why? Because preventing illegally obtained evidence from being used in murder cases may lead to innocents being killed by that murderer in the future. And so if you believe in that due process, you already support a policy which kills innocents _just like the death penalty does_. And therefore you must support all policies which may kill innocent people.

Bullshit.

Having the state kill someone is not at all the same as having a legal process that errs on the side of innocence (maybe Prager will next argue we should get rid of the presumption of innocence next). If that murderer-who-goes-free murders again, that was not because the state sanctioned it, nor was it the state performing it! Perhaps it's an argument for developing a pre-cog program, but it is not an argument for the death penalty.

Okay, so now I've read this guy's so-called reasoning. I've thought about it a second time, and all I've been able to conclude is that this guy has no rational argument for the death penalty.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2011)

Jay, I attacked the guy and said why I'm opposed to the death penalty.

What else do you want from me?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Jay, I attacked the guy and said why I'm opposed to the death penalty.
> 
> What else do you want from me?



I want you to say specifically why you believe the argument is fallacious without emotionally loaded meaningless words like "stupid" thrown at it and the guy arguing it. More, "Here's why I think this is wrong" and less name calling.

I have seen you object to it when people on the right do that. Hold ourself to a higher standard of argument than name calling.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 21, 2011)

Ed @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> > The most common objection opponents offer against capital punishment is that innocents may be executed.
> >
> > My answer has always been that this is so rare (I do not know of a proved case of mistaken execution in America in the last 50 years) that society must be prepared to pay that terrible price.
> 
> ...



...and I think, right there, is the clue to his integrity, or lack of it. I see this time and again - support an untenable position by simply denying basic facts, and repeating that denial as frequently, loudly and confidently as possible. How many people who read the original article bothered to do any research, such as the links you provided, Ed? Next to no-one. Jay will have to speak for himself of course as to why Prager changed his mind, but I'll wager the vast majority of people who read that will agree with it if they WANT to agree with it. It just reinforces a basic prejudice. It's how the tabloid press works, in the UK The Express and the Mail are the most adept at this.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

> > Over the years I have offered many arguments for capital punishment for murder:
> >
> > 1. It is a cosmic injustice to allow a murderer to keep his life.
> 
> ...


Haven't read beyond this, but you've started out badly. Perhaps it's an american expression. A "cosmic" injustice is an "enormous" one. Did I misunderstand you?

My response was, "that's an argument?"


----------



## Ed (Sep 21, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> > > Over the years I have offered many arguments for capital punishment for murder:
> > >
> > > 1. It is a cosmic injustice to allow a murderer to keep his life.
> >
> ...



Well its clearly meaningless in every way you can imagine, but personally since someone said he based much of his arguments on religion that is how I interpreted "cosmic injustice".


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2011)

Jay, it's pure coincidence that Prager happens to be a flaming asshole and that I happen to disagree with him. Correlation/causation.

"Cosmic injustice" is simply his opinion that it's right to execute people. I disagree with that on moral and emotional grounds. Of course it's not fair that people murder people, but once again, killing criminals doesn't reverse the injustice, it just compounds the tragedy.

The idea that killing murderers is society's only way of teaching that murder is bad makes no more sense than chopping off thieves' hands being the only way to express disdain for theft. Again this comes down to values/emotions more than anything else.

And it so happens that his aren't as good as mine.

Punishment for murder should of course be worse than for lesser things. BFD.

And I reject his opinion that the occasional screw-up is just part of the cost of doing business. I'd say he's stupid for saying that, except that you've forbidden me.

Also, take a look at this particular case. There's considerable *undue* process involved, or at least it appears that way.

Now please can I go back to insulting Dennis Prager? Please?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2011)

Oh - and I've never seen any evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent from committing capital crimes. Increasing the likelihood of getting caught is.


----------



## bdr (Sep 21, 2011)

Listening to Dennis Prager in the early 90s when I lived in LA was like having the mush cleared around my thoughts. He explained things with such beautiful clarity that it caused me to confront many of my ideas and opinions. Some changed, some didn't. But it really awoke a love of having my opinions challenged and I now really enjoy reading well thought out columns and articles that I don't agree with, as a type of knife-sharpener for my mind.

He has, I agree with Jay, gone too reactionary in the last few years, and I don't enjoy listening to him as much as I did.

Unless you believe you are the font of all knowledge, get his book, and it may make you think a second time about some issues.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 21, 2011)

:lol: Flaming Asshole................That's a Classic..

Well no sense of me left/right-ing this stuff or quoting disciples of Mohammed or Jehovah..

But the size of the crowd demanding a stay of execution and Clarence Thomas getting involved is why no matter how bad things get in the USA with the globalists designing our decisions and future, its the American people excercising their rights and protesting that makes me proud.
The Hippies of the '60's were right about VietNam, and these anti death penalty advocates are also right.
Government, needs to stop playing God and Nanny both...
Go spend money, that's what do best, or should I say worst..?

Obamas bosses...................ooopps............I mean advisors if they actually wanted to pretend they grew a brain in the last few weeks, should jump on this, and take steam out of the " GOP " debate hosted by Google tomorrow.


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 21, 2011)

Excecution delayed. Not sure how/why; just saw a quick snippet on the news. I understand a few people have recanted their testimony, saying they were forced/threatened, etc., but here is the thing for me: was there any _physical evidence_ linking Davis to the murder?


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 21, 2011)

I understand the sentiments and reasoned positions here. But shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast? The first things the cops saw was half of one of the woman's bodies. I can't remember if it was the mother or daughter.

My point is that I understand the sentiments and reasoned positions of the one remaining family member (husband/father) and those who see the death penalty as entirely appropriate in a case like this. Rabid animals get put down all the time (although I don't mean to insult the animal world with the comparison.)


----------



## JohnG (Sep 21, 2011)

chimuelo, your perspective adds a bracing dash of cynicism to a sad topic.

Touching on a few points:

1. saving money? -- it is not clear whether it's cheaper to execute anyone or simply hold him in prison for a long time. It is stunningly expensive to run through the appeals process. So the "save money, kill them" argument is not bullet-proof or even persuasive if that's true.

2. clarity -- there is sometimes, but rarely, crystal clarity in these cases. That's why we hear about them. They are exceptional. A jury decides based on evidence it sees, viewed through the jury's experiences and prejudices. To end up on death row in such equivocal circumstances seems a travesty to me. Prison is bad enough.

3. bias and mistakes -- the Illinois suspension of death penalties is illustrative; they did it because they had so many exonerations that they realised their process was flawed.

4. the poor, uneducated, and retarded get executed -- Probably they commit a disproportionate percentage of crime.

5. evidence of deterrence? sketchy to zero


----------



## sbkp (Sep 21, 2011)

JohnG @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> 5. evidence of deterrence? sketchy to zero



I'm going to keep pointing this out, but it's not sketchy to zero. It's _negative_.

The death penalty, or at least publicizing executions, _increases_ the homicide rate.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2011)

John, this was in the LA Times last month:

(excerpt)

"Their findings show that taxpayers spend an extra $184 million each year to keep death row inmates fed, guarded and represented by lawyers, money that would be better spent putting cops on the street and investigators on the 46% of murder cases that go unsolved, said Jeanne Woodford, the former San Quentin State Prison warden now heading Death Penalty Focus."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 4319.story


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> I understand the sentiments and reasoned positions here. But shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast?



Nope. 
I wouldn't be that bothered by it this week if they did. Because I'm angry.
But no. They shouldn't.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 21, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Dave Connor @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the sentiments and reasoned positions here. But shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast?
> ...



Those guys are looking at life in prison at best. If it were me and I had a choice I would much rather check off the planet then live in prison till I'm 80 or whatever.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Wed Sep 21 said:
> ...



Guys who cold blooded-ly end the lives of innocents have seen to it that their victims will never again experience even a moment of pleasure in this world. The idea that they then can continue to enjoy even brief moments of it year after year, and yes they do because even the worst prison allows some moments where they can experience some pleasure, is an affront to decency and justice. 

I'm sorry, I know that is not a popular view here but that is what I believe.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 21, 2011)

wow! 

i dunno about this info:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

that seems very high price for killing someone instead of keeping them in prision . 

aside from the moral and ethical issues of either side, 
thats seems like a looooot of money to do something it comes very easy for a lot of poeple daily. 

dunno if its that i don't believe this info or that the info is right but the way its done costs too much money.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 21, 2011)

Planning an execution of someone is exactly what serial killers and hitmen do. It's actually a disease where people speak of the feeling of power that overcomes them as they watch someone die. It's an addiction. And to think our Government acts this way is just inhumane and barbaric.
We can also see the adverse effects it has on our society as we now have murderers walking free like Casey Anthony.

If seeing her walk makes you angry, you can blame the adverse effect the Death Penalty has on a jury.
Most Americans just don't want to be a part of killing someone unless they are protecting their own in self defense.

It's also why we despise war unless we are attacked.
Hence war is never even declared anymore, just more death and destruction, rebulit out of guilt.

Too bad we can;t have a larger centralized Government. It seems logical to address an ever growing population. The Consitution was designed hundreds of years ago for a few hundred thousand people.
We have made ammendments, but this practice is a scar on our society, and one we should eliminate if we ever expect our children to be better than we were. This is why a growing Government even larger than it already is, is something I have grown to fear.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 21, 2011)

I woke up to the news today about Troy. Actually felt quite sick. It's probably wishful thinking I know, but all I can hope is that such an obvious miscarriage of justice, which paints America in such a barbaric light in the world, might provide a catylist to re-open the debate and get the death penalty eradicated for good.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 21, 2011)

Of course some people see it as barbaric and I understand that. I see it as a penalty. I don't like paying penalties and I avoid them every day by my behavior. I don't like unfair penalties either. But these are inhuman, demonic acts of savagery perpetrated upon innocent people. This family I mentioned just had their own personal holocaust. When you perpetrate that kind of crime you have to pay a penalty. Death is probably too good for these psychotic murderers who flaunt the system with impunity.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2011)

People say abolish the death penalty and I generally agree on principle. But, then there's this .

http://itemonline.com/local/x221224883/Brewers-execution-draws-crowd (http://itemonline.com/local/x221224883/ ... raws-crowd)

I say Brewer wasn't put to death fast enough.

Tough to swallow. But, sometimes the crime is so heinous that death by torture rather than 3 squares a day is the only real "justice".

As for Troy's case. He's looking good for the crime. But, the only real question that I think people are instinctively feeling is does one mistake while drinking equate to the death penalty. In all honesty if he hadn't killed a cop then he probably would have been out in less the five years. I think in Troy's case the hand of "justice" was perhaps biased and heavy handed.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

josejherring @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> As for Troy's case. He's looking good for the crime.



You've gotta be kidding me. Helpfully condensed by the UK's Guardian:



> 1. Of the nine witnesses who appeared at Davis's 1991 trial who said they had seen Davis beating up a homeless man in a dispute over a bottle of beer and then shooting to death a police officer, Mark MacPhail, who was acting as a good samaritan, seven have since recanted their evidence.
> 
> 2. One of those who recanted, Antoine Williams, subsequently revealed they had no idea who shot the officer and that they were illiterate – meaning they could not read the police statements that they had signed at the time of the murder in 1989. Others said they had falsely testified that they had overheard Davis confess to the murder.
> 
> ...



To be honest, you don't need to get past numbers 1 and 2 to deduce that the US criminal justice system is a sick joke. The further it goes on, the more hideous it gets. The politicization of the Supreme Court is a root cause - when your top place to appeal to is crooked, there's little hope of genuine justice.

Troy Davis should have been free years ago, based on the evidence above. To twist this into saying that prosecution are "certain" of his guilt is, itself, a heinous crime for which people should be tried in my view. How on earth does that tally add up to "beyond reasonable doubt"?


----------



## lux (Sep 22, 2011)

as an external viewer i consider this a classic loop discussion. Proof being that death penalty is still so active there.

profiles are imo established already

- progressists with care about human life even in its worst form. They tend to convince others using "rational" or "material" arguments in hope of not being called idealists or pussies. But at the end of the day is just that they deeply feel that killing someone by law is the lowest and saddest form of human behaviour. Something for what one shouldnt deserve to be called human. They try to save lifes using "mild" arguments against the blood thirsty people hoping to not hurt them and get them less unbreakable in their deathly position. In hope to change things pratically.

- half positioned "i relatively care" people which alternatively spouse one side or another, read articles, whatch tv shows. Like me reading a book then say "ok, article convinced me. Kill him.". My impression is that they would not push the button. Basically are uninterested by the matter imo.

- blood thirsty. Which seems to be the majority where dethly penalty is active.


In general i would say that position should be supported by an active availability to push the death button. If you really think that come here and push yourself the button.


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 22, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> I think the answer lies somewhere in Dante's Inferno. We need prisons with certain levels.
> 
> Circle 1 would be limbo. This level is for small crimes and people who seem guilty of crime but we aren't sure and threw them in there because they just kinda seemed a little suspicious. Maybe their skin was suspiciously dark or something.
> 
> ...




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 



thats good.


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 22, 2011)

chimuelo @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> :lol: Flaming Asshole................That's a Classic..
> 
> 
> Obamas bosses...................ooopps............I mean advisors if they actually wanted to pretend they grew a brain in the last few weeks, should jump on this, and take steam out of the " GOP " debate hosted by Google tomorrow.




:lol: :lol: 

get ready for armageddon depression.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Sep 22, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> The idea that they then can continue to enjoy even brief moments of it year after year, and yes they do because even the worst prison allows some moments where they can experience some pleasure, is an affront to decency and justice.



The problem with that approach is that there is no agreeable definition of 'decency' or 'justice'. They are value judgements affected by exterior prejudices. One person's view of 'decency' or 'justice' is not the same as another's.

For me, there is nothing 'decent' about putting someone to death, no matter how heinous the crime. I don't think they should be allowed to sip lattes by a pool for the rest of their lives, but I think a nation state putting to death its own citizens sends out a wholly unacceptable moral message, and one that isn't likely to promote a civilised society in which heinous crimes reduce.

The death penalty is expensive, ineffective, open to misuse and results in the death of innocent people. Those reasons alone should be enough to put an end to it.

Clearly in the case of Troy Davis his execution has been allowed to continue for political reasons, a bureaucratic face-saving exercise. We can't trust our governments to organise a system of bin collection properly, yet we expect them to handle something like the death penality? Ridiculous.

If the death penalty was re-introduced in the UK, I would be ashamed of my country.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

Question. If as I (and it seems many others) strongly suspect that somewhere in the chain of justice there was a deliberate effort to ignore compelling evidence regarding Troy's innocence (in order to safe face as Matt suggests above), does that now implicate someone in that system - or some people - in murder? And how should one appropriately punish that crime if subsequently convicted?


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 22, 2011)

TheUnfinished @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> If the death penalty was re-introduced in the UK, I would be ashamed of my country.




you mean youre not already after those riots you had? you take a look at the figures and i think youll find the level of violent crime in the uk has exponentially risen since they did away with hanging. there is apparently a strong lobby now within your government to bring back the death penalty. hindley and brady for instance should have been hanged and thats all there is to it. if i were a brit i would not be ashamed of that.

i dont make any judgement on capital punishment one way or another but a lot of people should put themselves in the position of being a parent for instance. take the fairly local to me when im in the uk murder of milly dowler. that guy is obviously guilty of that and other similar crimes. would you want him to live if that was your daughter? maybe you would but then you would have to examine carefully why you would and soforth.

are you all talking about the possible mistaken cases of execution or whether there should be no capital punishment? that seems to be an issue here.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

George Caplan @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> TheUnfinished @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > If the death penalty was re-introduced in the UK, I would be ashamed of my country.
> ...



You'll find parents of murdered children who want the murderers killed, you'll find others who, though devastated beyond comprehension, don't. I'm deeply suspicious of arguments that go "you'd feel differently in those shoes". Who is to presume?

Of course I can understand people wanting cold-blooded killers to themselves be killed, it appeals to basic Old Testament justice (always seems ironic that so many far-right Christians advocate something that New Testament Jesus seemed to represent the polar opposite of, but I digress). The biggest issues for me are practical - miscarriages of justice seem almost routine. That's bad in life imprisonment cases, unspeakable in death penalty ones.

I've no idea what the riots have to do with anything, btw.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Sep 22, 2011)

George Caplan @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> you mean youre not already after those riots you had?



No, not really. A handful of organised youths causing chaos is depressing and I don't condone it. But it doesn't make me ashamed of my country.



> you take a look at the figures and i think youll find the level of violent crime in the uk has exponentially risen since they did away with hanging.



In violent crims that were not punishable by death, certainly. Those crimes that were punishable by death have actually increased at a slower rate though. So I don't see that as an argument in favour of the death penalty.



> hindley and brady for instance should have been hanged and thats all there is to it. if i were a brit i would not be ashamed of that.



But what would that have achieved? And singling out an extreme case is an irrelevance. Yes, the parents of those children would possibly have been happier, but I don't think it's healthy for a government to pass laws out of a sense of revenge masquerading as punishment. I do not believe there should be capital punishment, full stop. So, yes, I would still be ashamed that there was a system in place that resulted in the execution of Brady and Hindley.



> take the fairly local to me when im in the uk murder of milly dowler. that guy is obviously guilty of that and other similar crimes. would you want him to live if that was your daughter? maybe you would but then you would have to examine carefully why you would and soforth.



Of course my emotional instinct would be to want to tear the guy's head off with my bare hands. But what's that got to do with how a government conducts itself? Would I want his death to open up the possibility that an innocent person might also be executed at a later date? I like to think I wouldn't. 



> are you all talking about the possible mistaken cases of execution or whether there should be no capital punishment? that seems to be an issue here.



I only speak for myself of course, but I firmly believe there should be no capital punishment under any circumstances.


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 22, 2011)

i would say that those last two posts/answers are balanced. but it shows its not a cut and dried affair as some people would have us believe.

riots are a symptom of the breakdown of law and order as is encampment on land that does not belong to the persons camped there and soforth. rioting in the uk is not a new thing as i understand. you could look at the history books and see riots where there were deaths over hundreds of years ago. manchester in the early 1800s as an example.

you answered the parents thing. closure although closure can mean different things to different parents/people.

in the end if persons think that they can go round shooting their fiance and putting her in a suitcase and all that will happen is 22 years or plead manslaughter for killing a young neighbor in bristol and let out after a certain amount of time then huston you have a problem. this has increased incredibly in your country. and then theres the pedophiles that kill children and plead insanity.

in america we have guns and gun laws and that massively affect the figures. imagine if you had the amendments in the uk whereby you could shoot say a burglar in your property. an interesting poll for uk residents i think that would be. theres talk from the current uk government that you will in fact to be able to protect yourself in your property in future. but with what? a knife? a rolling pin? i would rather shoot the bastard than fuck around with knives.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

George Caplan @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> in america we have guns and gun laws and that massively affect the figures.



They sure do.

Murders committed by youths
UK - 139
US - 8,226 (58 times more than United Kingdom)

Murders with firearms	
UK - 14
US - 9,369 (668 times more than United Kingdom)

Murders with firearms (per capita)
UK - 0.001 per 1,000 people
US 0.03 per 1,000 people (26 times more than United Kingdom)

SOURCE - http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Uni ... ates/Crime


----------



## Ed (Sep 22, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> I understand the sentiments and reasoned positions here. But shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast? The first things the cops saw was half of one of the woman's bodies. I can't remember if it was the mother or daughter.
> 
> My point is that I understand the sentiments and reasoned positions of the one remaining family member (husband/father) and those who see the death penalty as entirely appropriate in a case like this. Rabid animals get put down all the time (although I don't mean to insult the animal world with the comparison.)




No I dont think they should be executed, even if everyone agrees the evidence is as good to proved as you could ever get. 

The reasoning that the family and friends of the person murdered want that person to be killed and therefore we should do so makes no sence. If someone wiped out my whole family I sure would personally want those people that did that to be killed, but I also realise that it is not the states job to pander to what I personally want. 

The reason all these arguments for the death penalty utterly fail when put under scrutiny is the people promoting them will in almost ever case refuse to apply the same logic to any other crime. If someone rapes a 10 year old, they havent killed them, so what do you do with them? The community and family may want that person dead. Should we then decide that killing these people appropriate? What if they want him to have parts of his body mutilated. Is that appropriate? I never hear about the death penalty guys ever talking about anything other than murder or addressing these issues, so there's never any consistency. What if someone tortures someone - almost - to death, what should the punishment be? What if someone puts someone in a coma and they never wake up? What should the punishment be? 

There is a logic here that...
1. If you murder someone you should be executed and 
2. If the family and friends' want that person to be killed this should be taken into account.

Neither of these makes any sence once you try and apply this logic *consistently to the entire justice system* and that is why the death penalty is irrational and illogical.


----------



## Ed (Sep 22, 2011)

To be fair, we need a percentage rather than just the numbers. There's a lot more people in the US. Having said that I'm sure it would vield the same result.



noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> They sure do.
> 
> Murders committed by youths
> UK - 139
> ...


----------



## TheUnfinished (Sep 22, 2011)

George Caplan @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> Riots are a symptom of the breakdown of law and order as is encampment on land that does not belong to the persons camped there and soforth. rioting in the uk is not a new thing as i understand. you could look at the history books and see riots where there were deaths over hundreds of years ago. manchester in the early 1800s as an example.



A consistent sequence of riots would be very worrying indeed. One-off riots happen in most countries on an infrequent basis. They are rarely a sign of a nation going to the dogs. I'm sure there were riots during the glory years of Greek civilisation, during the Renassaince and the Enlightenment. Not everyone gets involved in either side!



> in the end if persons think that they can go round shooting their fiance and putting her in a suitcase and all that will happen is 22 years or plead manslaughter for killing a young neighbor in bristol and let out after a certain amount of time then huston you have a problem. this has increased incredibly in your country.



There's no evidence to suggest that's how people view murder, in fact pretty much the opposite. Premeditated murder makes up a very small percentage (estimated around 4%). Murders involving putting fiances in suitcases, probably an even smaller percentage. Yes, the number of murders has gone up over the last few decades (although are on the decline again now). An upward trend that started before the abolition of capital punishment. And, as I mentioned previously, at a slower rate than violent crimes that have never been sibject to the death penalty. Is Britain a more violent place than it was in the 60s? Yes. Is that to do with the abolition of the death penalty? The evidence does not support this theory. Is it to do with sentencing policy? Perhaps, but I do not have any figures on that. Is it to do with the perception of sentencing policy and over-inflated fear of crime promoted by UK media outlets? That's only my speculation and shouldn't be taken too seriously. 

EDIT: It's worth pointing out that although murders have gone up in the UK in total, from a per capita perspective, the rise has been minimal. Also, that figures remain quite low, so that meaningful statistical analysis is difficult as outlying confounding issues/data can have a major fluctuating effect.



> and then theres the pedophiles that kill children and plead insanity.



And that would stop if we had the death penalty? Not increase? I'm not aware that a defendant trying not to get imprisoned it's a new phenomenon. Neither is paedophilia. Much as some people seem to want to pretend it is.

But, more important than all of that, it doesn't bloody work!


----------



## Ed (Sep 22, 2011)

George Caplan @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> and then theres the pedophiles that kill children and plead insanity.



And what if they dont kill the child? Just severely physically and mentally torture them? By your own logic you can't put him to death, since no one died. Show me a way to apply the logic of the death penalty equally, you can't because a world where you did that would be absurd.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

Ed @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> To be fair, we need a percentage rather than just the numbers. There's a lot more people in the US. Having said that I'm sure it would vield the same result.



The final of those three figures was per capita and you're right - same result.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 22, 2011)

TheUnfinished @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that they then can continue to enjoy even brief moments of it year after year, and yes they do because even the worst prison allows some moments where they can experience some pleasure, is an affront to decency and justice.
> ...



1. Of course. Isn't that why we are having this discussion?

2.That i an unjust view, IMHO.

3. As I said earlier, in between doing too many, as Texas does, and doing none, as the UK does, is a wide swath and for me the correct place is somewhere in the middle. If it were reinstated in the UK for only the most heinous cases, 5 a year even, I would be proud of the UK.

And with that, I am out.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 22, 2011)

Well then Prager's first two points hit home for you two. And this is why we're never gonna settle this.

We (Dave, Jay and I, that is) agree death is too good for them. And life in prison is too good for them. And I even agree that it's a cosmic injustice.

And then we diverge. I prefer the cosmic injustice. 

At least I think that's the crux of it. At the moment.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Sep 22, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> 2.That i an unjust view, IMHO.



I don't know what you mean by that to be honest. But appreciate that you've bowed out, so I don't mind not knowing, rather than drag you back!


----------



## JohnG (Sep 22, 2011)

I don't think the death penalty, or any penalty, is "just a matter of opinion." Nobody would feel that stealing a loaf of bread merits 20 years in prison, for example. Historically, courts, legislators and philosophers have considered both public opinion and standards of other countries to see what the correct "line" should be in such matters.

Based on such a comparison (and leaving aside public opinion), it is hard not to view the USA as an outlier on the death penalty, when compared with its economic and form-of-government peers.

*Data?*

It seems to me correct to compare the US' legal system with that of its close cousins, close measured by per-capita income, wealth, and form of government. Based on the US' economy, democracy and pluralistic culture, it is obviously more in line with Europe, Canada, and Australia (where the death penalty is ended, except in Belorussia) than, say, China or Saudi Arabia, where the death penalty is still legal and where other differences are conspicuous. There are exceptions -- Japan, which is quite comparable to the US by many measures, still has execution on the books, though with a total of two executions in 2010, the number is small.

A few facts that as far as I know are not controversial:

1. In 1977, only 16 countries had abolished capital punishment. 139 countries have now abolished the death penalty in law or in practice (according to Wiki 95 have abolished it in law).

2. Eleven US States have abolished the death penalty

3. Government figures for number of executions in 2010: China (more than 2,000), Iran (252), Libya (18), Saudi Arabia (27), Syria (17), Yemen (53) -- USA (110)


*History*

Naturally, standards are different at different times and in different places. 

In the 18th century, simple theft could be punished by death in England. Possibly at that time there were so many people desperate, and such a mind-boggling disparity of wealth distribution, that such a penalty was necessary -- as a deterrent -- to keeping on the straight and narrow. That might make sense when a meaningful percentage of the population is close to starving every winter.

I think times have changed and it is past due for the USA to change as well. Not to mention the money saved on the appeal process, that could instead be used to improve people's lives.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

madbulk @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> Well then Prager's first two points hit home for you two. And this is why we're never gonna settle this.
> 
> We (Dave, Jay and I, that is) agree death is too good for them. And life in prison is too good for them. And I even agree that it's a cosmic injustice.
> 
> ...



And how about seemingly obvious travesties of justice, such as Troy Davis, and the obvious implication for a broader death penalty policy? (check out the 10 reasons not to kill him in the Guardian quote a few posts above, if you think this a closed case).


----------



## madbulk (Sep 22, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> madbulk @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Well then Prager's first two points hit home for you two. And this is why we're never gonna settle this.
> ...



I think you misunderstood me, Guy.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 22, 2011)

I'll bow out too after this... I think we've all covered it.
To answer Guy...
Troy Davis's guilt or innocence seems questionable, I don't really know much here.
The State of Georgia's guilt or innocence to me seems slightly clearer and since they're the #$%^ing STATE, there's a multiplier involved. So, shame.

As Ed said, all other arguments mostly fail. Both sides though. I started there, saying skip all that. Skip asking "How would you feel Mr Dukakis if your own wife were raped and murdered?" Skip asking if it's a deterrent or not. That's all relatively unimportant.

In the end you're always left with Matt's point #2. Unjust or not. That's the sticking point.

And as John's last post says to me, evolution is at work on that. Would be nice if it sped up a little, but that's evolution for ya.


----------



## FredrikJonasson (Sep 22, 2011)

TheUnfinished @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> If the death penalty was re-introduced in the UK, I would be ashamed of my country.



As I would be if that was the case in Sweden - terrifying thought!!


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 22, 2011)

Ed @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> George Caplan @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > and then theres the pedophiles that kill children and plead insanity.
> ...



logic is non applicable is most cases of this kind. how do you apply logic to the mental and physical torture of anything? who cares that no one died.

i would kill or severely maim anyone i found torturing an animal given the right opportunity. how many people in your country would agree with that and how many would give two shits about logic? you go and figure that out and come back to me in ohhh say 30 years time.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

madbulk @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> In the end you're always left with Matt's point #2. Unjust or not. That's the sticking point.



Maybe we are a cross-purposes... my point was that that's not the only sticking point. It is possible to support the death penalty in ethical principle ("those who take life should die") but founder due to the practical problem of miscarrying justice. It would seem a reasonable position to hold to say "killing an innocent person, wrongly convicted, is a greater evil than letting a guilty murderer NOT be killed, but rather to spend life in prison".

That's not my own position btw.


----------



## Ed (Sep 22, 2011)

So what have we learnt in this thread.

1. The death penalty is not cheaper
2. The death penalty is not a deterrent 
3. Death penalty promoters do not apply the same rationale consistently or logically to other crimes. 
4. If the whole of the US had the death penalty then statistically you'd be executing a huge number of innocent people.

So far no one has even tried to refute any of that.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 22, 2011)

"murder |ˈmərdər|
noun
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another "

I guess capital punishment is the _lawful_ premeditated killing of one human being by the state,then?

Many of the pro-capital punishment arguments have been debunked, such as the one insisting that is a deterrent, or the one that suggests it's cheaper. The ones that remain are harder to argue-protecting society from heinous murderers who might well continue their behavior (even in prison, where they really have nothing to lose), the rights of the relatives of victims to have biblical justice(for those who believe such a thing, and there are many who do), the fairness equation (take a life, lose yours). 

Personally, I don't believe that a government organ should be involved in killing its citizens for any reason. I believe that the sanctity of life and the surrounding moralities I grew up with preclude that, so overall I am not an objective thinker about this matter. However, one compelling piece of logic does move me-how can you ever be sure? And if you can't be sure, there are no do-overs. I don't think I'll ever develop "if you want to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs" pragmatism...and it has become apparent over the years that a fair amount of mistakes have been made. Who answers for them? Overzealous prosecutors and lazy cops, while not prevalent, ARE always in the system. Evidence IS manufactured or tampered with. "Hang 'em high" judges are always in the system. Witnesses lie, or are mistaken. Poorer people often cannot mount an adequate defense. 

In incarcerating murderers who have been through the system and found guilty, it seems to me that the state is protecting its citizens to the best of its ability. In killing them, it seems to me the state is taking on the role of a vengeful God.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Sep 22, 2011)

George Caplan @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> i would kill or severely maim anyone i found torturing an animal given the right opportunity. how many people in your country would agree with that and how many would give two shits about logic? you go and figure that out and come back to me in ohhh say 30 years time.



Seriously? Hopefully not many. That's certainly not a standpoint I've heard much in the UK.

Killing someone for torturing an animal? Sheesh...

There may be much wrong with the UK justice system. But I suspect it works better for not having too many people who don't give two shits about logic or want to kill people for torturing animals in it.

As we appear to have jumped the shark here, I'm out too.


----------



## Ed (Sep 22, 2011)

Im not even necessarily against the death penalty, its just no one promoting it has been able to show how to apply it consistently to the entire justice system and to ensure a way that innocent people do not get executed.




George Caplan @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> i would kill or severely maim anyone i found torturing an animal given the right opportunity. how many people in your country would agree with that and how many would give two shits about logic? you go and figure that out and come back to me in ohhh say 30 years time.



So you apparently think the punishment for torturing an animal should be execution? :| Where does it put this "eye for an eye" logic when you can't even apply that without ridiculous self-contradictory nonsensical stances on differing crimes. Its absurd. The fact that so many innocent people get put on death row already, if you applied the death penalty as wide as you apparently think it should be and to as many crimes as you think it should be applied to then this means literally hundreds of thosuands of innocent people will be executed. Apparently you're absolutely fine with that.

Why does my personal feelings matter? I may want someone who robbed me to have all kind sof horrible things done to them, why should the state give two shits about what I want? What if my sister was raped and we all want to see the guys genitals get cut off and have him strung up on a stick in the street naked for everyone to look at. Why should the state pander to what I want? 

You do not apply your arguments for the death penalty consistently, end of story, Until you do that it will continue to be a ridiculous illogical idea.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2011)

Ed @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> Im not even necessarily against the death penalty, its just no one promoting it has been able to show how to apply it consistently to the entire justice system and to ensure a way that innocent people do not get executed.



Kind of sums up my feelings too. 

In all honesty both sides for and against are arguing purely on personal beliefs not really supported by any real attempt at judgement of facts.

You talk to a liberal and he's for abortion even partial birth and late term abortion when the baby is able to live outside the mama's womb. Talk to conservatives and they're for killing people through the justice system or on life support, but can't stand the thought of killing a fetus. Both sides are so utterly simplistic in their views not accounting for 1000x variables in each scenario. And, that's the same problem with the justice system. It doesn't take into account degrees of right and wrong. And the ones charged with "judging" right and wrong have barely the capability to think for themselves or to judge anything as evidenced by the supreme court of the US.

This post is sure to piss some people off. The truth often does.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

josejherring @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> In all honesty both sides for and against are arguing purely on personal beliefs not really supported by any real attempt at judgement of facts.



Well not really. I've seen quite a lot of facts quoted and judgement based on them, I think entirely by the "anti" camp. This is probably significant.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > In all honesty both sides for and against are arguing purely on personal beliefs not really supported by any real attempt at judgement of facts.
> ...



Cherry picking facts to support your position isn't exactly a fair and honest view of "the facts".

Curious how nobody has bothered to comment on my earlier article about Brewer. The racist sob that beat up a black man, tied him to a truck and dragged his body down the road. A gruesome painful death. A vicious crime. Don't see many people picketing at his execution. Why? he got a painless lethal injection. Imo, he got off easy.

So what I'm saying is that some crimes warrant the death penalty and some don't. In the Troy Davis case, justice was too heavy handed. At the most they can only prove that he was an accomplice. Imo, he looks good for the crime. Shell casings from his gun were found at the scene. He denies having a gun, but then offers no explanation of how his gun got to the scene. In that case, then I can see the outcry. But in other cases not. 

Is it not equally unjust to not judge crimes for the severity? Either for or against the death penalty is too simple of an argument on both sides to base any just law on. That's why both sides clash with no real resolution. You can't be just for or against this issue. You have to weigh the million little variables in between both extremes. It's the main reason why all of the political and social and economic philosophies of mankind have failed and new philosophies come and go. None of them have the flexibility in them to cover all the variables of life. All of them based on a few pat beliefs that crumble on any kind of real intellectual scrutiny. And life has many variables that need to be weighed before one can reach a correct answer. And, even that correct answer is only correct in degrees and relative to other answers of a similar nature.

So if mankind wants to make any headway in subjects like justice, mankind needs to get off his belief systems to govern life and start looking directly at the infinite variations that make up life. You can argue until you're blue in the face, supported by examples like Troy Davis to argue against the justice system and against capital punishment. But, then you look just down the road and you see another example of when the justice system worked and capital punishment was not only just but actually too humane for the nature of the crime.

Think for yourselves. Don't take up a belief system. Then and only then can progress be made. Until then "justice" is just be another political issue. One that people have been fighting since the modern political "philosphies"(better described as faith based ideologies) have taken root. Mostly after WWI and WWII.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

josejherring @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> ...



Now see, I didn't get past paragraph 2. One moment you're complaining no-one is looking at facts, then you complain that the facts that have been presented are "cherry picked". On what evidence? Show us some referenced facts that put those that have already been presented into a wider and different context, then I'll accept the cherry picking accusation. Then before I can breathe, you're using an emotive argument in the very next sentence, which has nothing whatsoever to do with any facts. Even allowing for that... what does it prove? Hooray, they got a guilty one. Does that lessen the crime of killing an innocent man yesterday?


----------



## jlb (Sep 22, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> TheUnfinished @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> ...



I agree with Jay. It should apply for the utmost heinous crimes. Lawrence Brewer in Texas, who was put to death yesterday beat up a disabled man then attached a chain to him, then dragged him behind his truck. He suffered for some time, then he was decapitated by hitting a verge and finally put out of his misery. The other guy Troy Davis where they have no proof, no DNA etc, absolutely not.

I am sick of reading all this liberal bulls*t on here

jlb


----------



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> ...



I did. Nobody bothered to either read the article I posted or if they did didn't comment on it. It's a capital punishment case. Where not only did the justice system work, but then also capital punishment was actually too soft. So if you're not going to read what I've written then spare me the comments on what I've written. And, if all you're going to do is look at facts that support your cause then you're no better than some tea party guy saying we should kill all criminals. You're arguing a dichotomy. Just the flip side of a two sided coin. Life has more than two sides.


----------



## Mick Emery (Sep 22, 2011)

> Thou shalt not kill. If anything is true, this is true.
> All the other arguments are an unfortunate diversion.


Actually the statement is: "Thou shalt not murder."


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

josejherring @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> I did. Nobody bothered to either read the article I posted or if they did didn't comment on it. It's a capital punishment case. Where not only did the justice system work, but then also capital punishment was actually too soft. So if you're not going to read what I've written then spare me the comments on what I've written. And, if all you're going to do is look at facts that support your cause then you're no better than some tea party guy saying we should kill all criminals. You're arguing a dichotomy. Just the flip side of a two sided coin. Life has more than two sides.



OK - what article? I may well have missed it. If it's based on facts that can counter arguments like "it's more expensive" / "it doesn't act as a deterrent" / "several hundred probably innocent people have been unjustly killed" and is referenced like the ones posted here have been (ie not just an opinion piece shouting "facts" that are in fact opinions) I'll certainly take a look.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > I did. Nobody bothered to either read the article I posted or if they did didn't comment on it. It's a capital punishment case. Where not only did the justice system work, but then also capital punishment was actually too soft. So if you're not going to read what I've written then spare me the comments on what I've written. And, if all you're going to do is look at facts that support your cause then you're no better than some tea party guy saying we should kill all criminals. You're arguing a dichotomy. Just the flip side of a two sided coin. Life has more than two sides.
> ...



I'm not disputing those facts. I'm saying that those facts aren't reason enough to make a blanket statement like "time to do away with capital punishment". Probably several hundred innocent people have been unjustly killed. Of that I have no doubt. Troy Davis though maybe not innocent certainly didn't deserve to be killed for his crime. There's certainly enough doubt to ease the punishment in his case. I'm not disputing your facts. I'm disputing your conclusions of the facts. Those facts that you quote aren't reason enough to make a judgement about anything other than the Justice system sometimes doesn't work. We all know that.

As far as me looking up articles for you. I won't spend the time. Just google "Brewer Texas Execution". And, if you come back to me and say that this evil jackass didn't deserve to be put to death. I'll never speak to you again. :evil: 

José


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 22, 2011)

Jay (why is it that he's the guy who most makes me want to argue?) wrote:



> The idea that they then can continue to enjoy even brief moments of it year after year, and yes they do because even the worst prison allows some moments where they can experience some pleasure, is an affront to decency and justice.




The problem with your indignancy-peppered assumption is what's on the other side of that coin: the idea that decency and justice are taken aback when you execute people who have committed unspeakable acts.

They're not; there simply is no justice or decency in these cases.

***
Lex, I think you're not giving people who feel the way I do nearly enough credit. I for one have said all along that my main objection to capital punishment is emotional. There's nothing wrong with that. And it's not the only reason by any stretch, just the main one.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

josejherring @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> I'm not disputing those facts. I'm saying that those facts aren't reason enough to make a blanket statement like "time to do away with capital punishment". Probably several hundred innocent people have been unjustly killed. Of that I have no doubt. Troy Davis though maybe not innocent certainly didn't deserve to be killed for his crime. There's certainly enough doubt to ease the punishment in his case. I'm not disputing your facts. I'm disputing your conclusions of the facts. Those facts that you quote aren't reason enough to make a judgement about anything other than the Justice system sometimes doesn't work. We all know that.
> 
> As far as me looking up articles for you. I won't spend the time. Just google "Brewer Texas Execution". And, if you come back to me and say that this evil jackass didn't deserve to be put to death. I'll never speak to you again. :evil:
> 
> José



Okey doke. So we're not cherry picking after all - an important point.

But you've run straight into a problem. There are facts, then, that all suggest the death penalty is a bad thing. No-one has presented a fact that it is a good thing. Your contention, by contrast, is that the facts don't matter enough. This is a perfectly fine conclusion by the way... ethics I think can be more important than dispassionate facts otherwise we'd just kill all those boring slow old folks who aren't generating any money for the economy.

But it's important to state what this argument is and what it isn't. You can't complain about cherry picking facts when clearly facts aren't important to your argument. You're saying, effectively, that your ethics are better than their ethics, a completely subjective view, which is what madbulk's point is I think, and there's no point in arguing that one. My point (if I can remember it) was that for some people it is fine to make this decision purely based on facts, and on that conclusion anti wins the day hands down. Cos by any measurable yardstick, it appears capital punishment doesn't work.

See, where I personally stand is that no matter how wretched and evil a person is, I don't think that killing that person really rights a wrong anyway. In my darker moments I actually think inflicting horrific and protracted pain upon mankind's very worst specimens would be more preferable as death would be too good for them. I'm not proud of those thoughts, nor do I wish them to be acted upon. Actually thinking about it, religious belief is important here, isn't it? If there is no afterlife, then death might seem like a lucky escape for a murderer - they won't know anything. However, if you believe in hell / eternal damnnation, now that's a proper punishment, so the death penalty makes more sense. Hmm, I'm getting the religious connection now, perhaps.


----------



## Ed (Sep 22, 2011)

josejherring @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> Cherry picking facts to support your position isn't exactly a fair and honest view of "the facts".



Then that begs the question doesn't it...

People here have claimed that the death penalty is a deterrent. We've seen data that shows it does not and may even do the opposite. Do you know of any facts that tell a different story? It has been asserted that the death penatly is cheaper, data in this thread shows it may not be. What facts do you know of that show this is incorrect?

We also had Jay endorsing Dennis Prager who claims that the idea that innocent people might be executed to be so rare its not worth thinking about and knows of no occasions where this has happened, ignoring various documented cases by many respectable sources such as the American Bar Association where hundreds of people we now know were innocent determined by DNA analysis not available at the time of their case were on death row at the time this was discovered. Again, what facts do you know of that tell a different story?

Unless I missed it no pro-death penalty supporter in this thread has presented any data at all or even tried to counter any of the data and facts supplied so far. If you claim the anti-death penalty guys (which I guess would include me) have "cherry picked data", then I'm afraid you're going to have to provide some kind of example of that. 

But even if it was some verifiable deterrent and verifiably cheaper to some degree, the bottom line is something you seem to have already agreed with in your last post. The death penalty argument has so far been a fallacious irrational appeal to emotion that refuses to apply itself consistently or consider its ramifications to society if it were, examples of which I have already mentioned in various different ways. 




> Curious how nobody has bothered to comment on my earlier article about Brewer. The racist sob that beat up a black man, tied him to a truck and dragged his body down the road. A gruesome painful death. A vicious crime. Don't see many people picketing at his execution. Why? he got a painless lethal injection. Imo, he got off easy.



I certainly did, I don't actually know of the case you're refering to but I did reply to Dave Connor's example but it makes no difference what case you're refering to because the same argument applies to whatever case you care to imagine. 

Its page 3 - 13 posts down. (or, my first comment on that page)






> So what I'm saying is that some crimes warrant the death penalty and some don't.



There is a difference between what should be and what is.

If you endorse the death penalty it is very hard to definitively draw a line in the sand about what should and shouldn't demand death. Once you start talking about it with a pro-death penalty supporter, as it is a pro-lifer, eventually you will reach a point where they will show their line is entirely arbitary and that their logic of justice makes no sence at all. That is why George said that people who torture animals should be put to death. Just how far do you go? In law you need to be more specific than that and I'd rather criminals not be executed than see innocent people be executed for things they didn't do. We're not talking about letting these people out of jail, we're talking about not executing them. You can always let someone out of jail but you can't bring them back from the dead. 




> In the Troy Davis case, justice was too heavy handed. At the most they can only prove that he was an accomplice. Imo, he looks good for the crime. Shell casings from his gun were found at the scene. He denies having a gun, but then offers no explanation of how his gun got to the scene. In that case, then I can see the outcry. But in other cases not.




My position in the case of Troy Davis that it is *irrelevant* whether he is innocent or guilty.

The fact that the case against him was so poorly done, that there was no physical evidence and the main issue, that we have 7 out of 9 witness' that say the police essentially *forced them to lie*, I feel is enough to stop the execution. Such a case if tried again today would probably not have ended with a conviction if such things came to light during the trial. Why should it not matter now? With something as serious as the death penalty people should not be executed based on such flimsy evidence and where there is evidence of police corruption - on principle. 

As I said earlier there have been over a hundreds documented cases where DNA testing of inmates on death row showed that they were innocent of the crime, since there is no physical evidence in the case of Troy there was no chance for any such evidence that could have exonerated him ever coming forward. If those other people's cases also contained no DNA evidence then they would have been sent to die just like Troy and the state would have executed over a hundred people we *know* were innocent of the crime. I don't think its worth that, ever. Perhaps ponder how many innocent people have been executed before that who didn't have the luxury of modern DNA analysis proving their innocence.




> Is it not equally unjust to not judge crimes for the severity? Either for or against the death penalty is too simple of an argument on both sides to base any just law on.



You dont have a law that says there is no death penalty, you simply don't have the death penalty. 



> That's why both sides clash with no real resolution. You can't be just for or against this issue. You have to weigh the million little variables in between both extremes.



In the case of abortion I understand its not so cut and dry, there are different issues to consider. Of course the problem with the pro-life stance is that any rational arguments against abortion (and there are) are muddied by the moronic idiocy of the evangelical religious right that it can almost seem like you have to be pro-choice to be against that and on the side of reason.

With the death penalty on the other hand I think its pretty clear. I would love to have a way to put to death the most sickest criminals in society, but until someone can explain how to do that in a way that makes sence in a logical way and can apply it equally and consistently to every area of the justice system with arguments that make sence and do not boil down to emotion and religion and ensures that innocent people do not get executed, then I'm never going to be able to agree with it. Since it appears like this will never be reconciled or apparently even addressed by pro-death penalty advocates I can't see myself ever agreeing with it. 


One last thing...




> But, then you look just down the road and you see another example of when the justice system worked and capital punishment was not only just but actually too humane for the nature of the crime.



Spin it any way you like and this is just an appeal to emotion. I totally understand the feeling when you hear about some nutter raping, torturing and murderig someone that they should be mutilated, abused and finially killed. I understand that feeling. I also feel when someone cuts in line at the post office i want to punch them in their stupid faces (j/k) 

If that horrible crime happened to someone I know, I'd probably want to do it myself. That however is not something the state should pander to and its not something they do in any case. In the US the worst thing the state can do to you is execute you, the worst form of execution appears to be the electric chair. So even if that person in my example got the electric chair, the worst form of punishment the US can presumably give out, it will STILL be nothing compared to what I and various others would want to happen to them or what we feel deserves to happen to them. 

So, if we accept that we *already* don't pander to the wills of the victims, or their friends and family - and we clearly do not - then surely we understand there is a reason for that. The reason why we don't is the same reason that what the victims, their friends and their family members want for punishment doesn't matter, and can't possibly be an argument for the death penalty anymore than saying that someone should have their hands cut off because they beat me up and stole my wallet because I personally believe a lesser punishment to not be severe enough and they deserve it. Otherwise we have system that is essentially listening to a mob with burning pitch forks that demand and get whatever they want.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 22, 2011)

Mick Emery @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> > Thou shalt not kill. If anything is true, this is true.
> > All the other arguments are an unfortunate diversion.
> 
> 
> Actually the statement is: "Thou shalt not murder."



Actually, we've covered that.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 22, 2011)

Ed @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> The reasoning that the family and friends of the person murdered want that person to be killed and therefore we should do so makes no sence.



That wasn't remotely my point. My point is that the family and those who are in favor of these particular murderous psychotics receiving the death penalty {throughout the US} are not barbarians because they want the punishment to fit the crime.

A convicted car thief or white collar criminal receives the penalty of incarceration for so many years. For a torturing, raping, dismembering, human-burning psychopath to get the same penalty: incarceration (for a longer period) seems completely inappropriate as a relative penalty.

Consider that Charles Manson has been up for parole countless times with family members of the slaughtered regularly having to testify to keep him behind bars and worry about him getting out. It won't happen because it's too high profile but these guys get out all the time and even kill again. Where is the balance here for victims and potential victims? Why are people so worried about the killers? The families are already suffering. Cons view prison as home sweet home half the time. Manson has said that's where he feels most comfortable.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> Consider that Charles Manson has been up for parole countless times with family members of the slaughtered regularly having to testify to keep him behind bars and worry about him getting out. It won't happen because it's too high profile but these guys get out all the time and even kill again. Where is the balance here for victims and potential victims? Why are people so worried about the killers? The families are already suffering. Cons view prison as home sweet home half the time. Manson has said that's where he feels most comfortable.



Parole is another issue altogether. I don't know the details, but it would seem crazy to me that family members have to testify regularly in a case like Manson's - the solution to that though is to review the parole system though.

I hear the "prison is holiday camp" line a lot, and have to say it usually sounds like right wing propaganda to me, not a reflection of reality. Manson is a genuine psychopath - we shouldn't believe a single thing he says about anything, because psychopaths are, among other things, compulsive liars for their entire lives. He'd probably enjoy you believing that he's having a great time though.

I think folks on this thread have - largely - consistently failed to engage with the issue of false conviction, usually just brushing it off. That makes no sense to me. If it is correct that 350 innocent people are dead now because of capital punishment, then to me that is far far worse than the genuinely guilty people having a lifetime in prison rather than being killed. To flip the emotive argument around... what if it was your innocent son who was put to death by the state, even knowing he was probably innocent but they needed to save face? Unlikely unless you happen to be black of course.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 22, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> .I think folks on this thread have - largely - consistently failed to engage with the issue of false conviction, usually just brushing it off. That makes no sense to me. If it is correct that 350 innocent people are dead now because of capital punishment, then to me that is far far worse than the genuinely guilty people having a lifetime in prison rather than being killed. To flip the emotive argument around... what if it was your innocent son who was put to death by the state, even knowing he was probably innocent but they needed to save face? Unlikely unless you happen to be black of course.



I don't fancy the death penalty in any way. I'm saying that if it's iron clad like this case with a living witness, there is no reason to be sympathetic and shy away from a classical administering of justice (once they've been tried and convicted.)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 23, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> (once they've been tried and convicted.)



...and there's the rub. That very system has apparently screwed up 350 times and counting.

I read the problem well described this week. The judicial system - at least in theory - works on the presumption of innocence until convicted. But then it flips - after a guilty verdict there's a presumption of guilt. Evidence at that point has to be totally overwhelming to overturn the original verdict.

It seems reasonable until you see how often it fails. This is why Troy Davis is such a cause celebre... there is (please God) not a jury on Earth that would convict him at an original trial if all that information we now know came out at the time. But now that same evidence has little weight once a jury has made a decision based partly on false or missing information. Unless there is total 100% factual proof, it seems, nothing will change. 99% probability isn't enough, because it runs the risk of the entire system being more frequently exposed as fundamentally flawed.

I guess you can understand that they don't want to swamp the courts being filled with endlessly re-run cases, even if the system sucks. But put the death penalty at the end of the chain, and the whole process becomes subhuman. You end up with an innocent person being (to my mind) murdered by the state, while the person who actually committed that terrible crime walks free. And, indeed, on the basis of what we know, there's a reasonable chance that we even know who that person is... certainly enough evidence to bring a trial, I'd have thought.

Well done Georgia, you've done your country proud.


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 23, 2011)

Ed @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> Im not even necessarily against the death penalty, its just no one promoting it has been able to show how to apply it consistently to the entire justice system and to ensure a way that innocent people do not get executed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



who said im for the death penalty. did i say that? dont think so.

im guessing youre quite young right? youve never sat on a jury. you sit on a jury and your eyes will be wide open to logic my young friend. ive sat on 3 juries in my time and believe me maybe 2 guys tried using logic during the jurys out procedure and just gave up all 3 times. you will find living in the real world that logic is a relatively interesting theory when applied to real life circumstances and is a luxury kept somewhere in a box.
for example try using logic when youre trading. just as one example where youve gotten things like historical data and maths as tools amongst many other things. oh and logic. none of that means shit. sentiment means everything and the same goes when people make decisions about life and death. sentiment. see if you can work that one out as life goes on.

yes i would like to see anyone torturing animals because of their faulty mentality at least tortured. these type of people are anomalies that will never be cured. just because some bleeding heart liberal pinko thinks that the world should be perfect in their image means diddly squat to everyone else.

anyone here think bin laden should have lived? some people need to shove a posy up their ass just so the rest of us know whats coming next.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 23, 2011)

George Caplan @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> who said im for the death penalty. did i say that? dont think so.
> 
> im guessing youre quite young right? youve never sat on a jury. you sit on a jury and your eyes will be wide open to logic my young friend. ive sat on 3 juries in my time and believe me maybe 2 guys tried using logic during the jurys out procedure and just gave up all 3 times. you will find living in the real world that logic is a relatively interesting theory when applied to real life circumstances and is a luxury kept somewhere in a box.
> for example try using logic when youre trading. just as one example where youve gotten things like historical data and maths as tools amongst many other things. oh and logic. none of that means shit. sentiment means everything and the same goes when people make decisions about life and death. sentiment. see if you can work that one out as life goes on.



Wow, it's one thing to think that's really how others think... quite another to read it proudly boasted. You think this is good? Is it good that traders don't rely on logic or reason? With one crippling collapse under our belts a couple of years ago and another seemingly imminent, I'd say logic and reason is EXACTLY what the stock market has been missing.

And how about those stupid jurors using logic? Yeah, screw that, the pinko liberal assholes. Far better to act on the first emotion that comes into your collective heads, even if its all based on lies. Someone was murdered! Let's lynch someone! Anyone! Georgia justice - f**in' A!

Folks, is this an insight into how Troy Davis died? We've seen that once convicted, overturning it is virtually impossible based on the presumption of guilt. If people using logic were shouted down in the jury room, never mind being presented with incomplete or fabricated evidence, it paints a frankly terrifying picture of American justice.

I'm sure it won't bother you one iota George... I wish you no ill of course, but I'll be discounting your off-topic posts from here on, based on the above. With references to those who disagree with you as "pinko liberals" and the rejection of reason as a vaild method for decision-making, it seems a long way from rational debate, I'm afraid, which is a shame as this thread has raised some really good, well informed posts.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Sep 23, 2011)

Yes, George, your being patronising, rude and throwing strawmen around is really swaying me towards your line of thinking.

If logic doesn't mean shit, perhaps you'd like to stop using all those scientific advancements like machines, medicines, transportation and communications infrastructure, that came about by intelligent people employing logic to test theories until something worked.

I don't know if 35 counts as young these days, but if in twenty years time I'm as angry, defeatist and ride as you I'll be deeply disappointed.

I mean, seriously, who uses a phrase like "bleeding heart liberal pinko" and thinks it actually means anything? Bizarre.


----------



## Ed (Sep 23, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> Ed @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > The reasoning that the family and friends of the person murdered want that person to be killed and therefore we should do so makes no sence.
> ...



Of course it was, that is why you asked "_shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast? _" and then said that you understand the sentiments of family members who agree with the death penalty. As i said before, it is irrelevant what you or the family, friends of the victim want. So the answer to your question of whether they should they be executed, the answer is clearly no. If you disagree, and you obviously do, I have to ask "why?" And then unless someone can give a good explanation for all the issues I've brought up already then emotional appeals such as this simply have no weight. 



> Where is the balance here for victims and potential victims? Why are people so worried about the killers? The families are already suffering. Cons view prison as home sweet home half the time. Manson has said that's where he feels most comfortable.



Again, appeal to emotion, claiming that we should care what the family want and claiming that my point is that I'm "worrying about the killers". I've already given various examples in my recent long post to Jose and I've given examples to you in the post you replied to that show this cannot be taken into account if we are to apply this logic everywhere. If you arent going to address any of it and simply keep going back to this I take it you don't really have an argument for it. I already said I agree with the death penalty in theory, I don't agree that everyone has the right to live, but until you can show me a way to apply the death penalty in a way that actually makes sence then I cannot support it.


----------



## Ed (Sep 23, 2011)

George Caplan @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> who said im for the death penalty. did i say that? dont think so.



Oh dear, we've run into the kind of argument where people start pretending they didnt say what they then go on to argue. 

Where did I get the idea that you believe people who torture animals should be executed? Hmm, I have no idea, it might have something to do with this... "_i would kill or severely maim anyone i found torturing an animal given the right opportunity._" and telling me logic doesn't matter when making laws. I bet you would not in fact do this given the opportunity, becuase you realise that the law would put you in jail for far longer than the guy who you just murdered or severely assaulted. I wonder if you think the law would be unfair in putting you in jail or executing you for murdering a guy who tortured animals. What do you think your punishment should be for murdering someone who tortured animals? I wonder...




> im guessing youre quite young right?



Yea I mean everyone knows if you're old you're always right. 



> youve never sat on a jury. you sit on a jury and your eyes will be wide open to logic my young friend. ive sat on 3 juries in my time and believe me maybe 2 guys tried using logic during the jurys out procedure and just gave up all 3 times. you will find living in the real world that logic is a relatively interesting theory when applied to real life circumstances and is a luxury kept somewhere in a box.



Amazing. Apparently when you get older and sit on a jury you realise that you go on your gut instinct and emotions, logic doesn't matter which means facts, evidence, reason and science don't matter either. Its a good thing the justice system doesn't work the way you think. 



> for example try using logic when youre trading. just as one example where youve gotten things like historical data and maths as tools amongst many other things. oh and logic. none of that means [email protected]#t. sentiment means everything and the same goes when people make decisions about life and death. sentiment. see if you can work that one out as life goes on.



What a load of bollocks. Now while I've never been a trader, trading is not a supernatural process. You do indeed have to use logic and reason to assess the facts in order to make calculated ricks, you do not use your emotions. "Instinct" is something that if regularly correct is unconsciously based on your knowledge and experience of the business. Even if you may claim you only use your emotions, if you were to explain the process eventually you would have to accept that it is not your emotions you rely upon. I don't intend to actually spend 7 pages doing that, so don't bother trying, I already know you're full of shit. 



> yes i would like to see anyone torturing animals because of their faulty mentality at least tortured.



This sentence doesn't make sence, but I assume you're saying that you support torture if someone has tortured animals. So first you said that they should be executed, now you're saying they should be tortured, or at least "mentally tortured". You've not explained why you think that or what should be the law rather than just what you personally believe should happen, or why the law should care what you personally want. 



> these type of people are anomalies that will never be cured. just because some bleeding heart liberal pinko thinks that the world should be perfect in their image means diddly squat to everyone else.



If it makes you feel better putting everyone who doesn't agree with you in a little box you have constructed where you can automatically reject anything they say then knock yourself out. 

The fact is you have failed to address any of the facts in this thread, failed to address a single one of my points or questions or how to apply these laws consistently and without allowing innocent people to be executed. You have these ideas about what should happen to someone who abuses animals, but don't seem to consider what your punishment should be for inflicting that on someone and if we were to apply that same logic consistently to other crimes what the consequences of that would be. You can't do that and refuse to do that becuase your entire argument is based on emotion, you even specifically say that logic doesn't matter. I almost want to say thanks for making my entire point for me. 

Also, not sure where you get this "pinko" thing from, we're not living the 70s you know. 

 


> anyone here think bin laden should have lived? some people need to shove a posy up their ass just so the rest of us know whats coming next.



I have no problem with Bin Laden being killed, would have been better to capture him and get information out of him and have him tried like Saddam first, but as I said before I don't believe everyone has the right to life and Bin Laden was leader of terrorist groups in a war. However there's logical reasons why he should not have been killed as well such as turning him into a martyr (i dont think its that good an argument), as well as emotional ones such as I think someone will suffer far more in indefinite prison than they will if they just die. I wonder how that makes me fit in your _"bleeding heart liberal pinko"_ box.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 23, 2011)

Let me put this a different way: the only time justice exists is *before* a crime with results that can't be undone. And that's not just with murder; the life savings and pensions and so on people invested with Bernie Madoff are gone (for the most part).

All that's left is revenge, punishment, protecting society (including debatable deterrent effects), and maybe rehabilitation (not for capital murders, but for espionage?). Each one of those is something different from justice.

So the fact that someone deserves to die doesn't bring justice if he or she is executed. Justice would be if the people were brought back to life. There's no justice for lesser crimes either - Bernie Madoff's victims are still SOL.

***
Dave, it's worth pointing out that the families of victims often don't want the murderers to be executed. But even when they do, I don't consider that a valid argument for the death penalty. It's not for the victims, it's supposedly for society, right?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 23, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> So the fact that someone deserves to die doesn't bring justice if he or she is executed.



And that is the crux of the disagreement between people who feel as you do and those who feel as I do. It may not cause cessation of the pain of loss, although for the survivors of many victims it does lessen it, but it is justice in my view.


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 23, 2011)

TheUnfinished @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> I don't know if 35 counts as young these days, but if in twenty years time I'm as angry, defeatist and ride as you I'll be deeply disappointed.



youll be deeply disappointed. trust me. i can already tell by what you say. o-[][]-o


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 23, 2011)

Ed @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> I have no problem with Bin Laden being killed..........



do you guys ever do yes or no answers?


----------



## madbulk (Sep 23, 2011)

Killing OBL falls under self defense.


----------



## Ed (Sep 23, 2011)

George Caplan @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> Ed @ Fri Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with Bin Laden being killed..........
> ...



That *was *a yes, how did you read it any differently? But just because I agree with it doesn't mean I agree with it for the same reason you do.

Don't you ever address any responces you get? I guess not.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 23, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > So the fact that someone deserves to die doesn't bring justice if he or she is executed.
> ...



For us, it's the crux I think, yes.
But... Ed and I and most here agree on much, but are not aligned. Ed is kool with the death penalty in theory -- he just dismisses the possibility that it will ever be meted out well enough to work.

Let me try to put an even finer point on this and see if it takes us anywhere we haven't been repeatedly.
I disagree with it to the utmost, and I believe that's where Nick is as well -- even if someone deserves to die for a heinous crime or many, I'm not interested in killing him, and therefore don't want the state that represents me to do it either. It lowers us, in my opinion, and regardless of what they may deserve, I don't deserve that punishment.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 23, 2011)

Exactly.

Justice is a reward, not a punishment.


----------



## Ed (Sep 23, 2011)

madbulk @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> For us, it's the crux I think, yes.
> But... Ed and I and most here agree on much, but are not aligned. Ed is kool with the death penalty in theory -- he just dismisses the possibility that it will ever be meted out well enough to work.
> 
> Let me try to put an even finer point on this and see if it takes us anywhere we haven't been repeatedly.
> I disagree with it to the utmost, and I believe that's where Nick is as well -- even if someone deserves to die for a heinous crime or many, I'm not interested in killing him, and therefore don't want the state that represents me to do it either. It lowers us, in my opinion, and regardless of what they may deserve, I don't deserve that punishment.



Well I kind of agree with that as well. When I say I agree with the death penalty in theory, I mean that I don't agree with the idea that everyone deserves to live and that all human life should be respected regardless of what someone has done. If I would personally have no problem killing someone who just murdered someone I cared about, then therefore I can't necessarily have a problem with the state doing that as well. The problem is that unless it was done so in a way that made logical sence in the way I have already described, it would indeed "lower us" as a society. I don't believe it is possible to resolve it so it can be done, so that is why I say I only agree in theory.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 23, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Justice is a reward, not a punishment.



Justice is neither. Justice is taking the appropriate steps to make something as right as is possible. Frequently the end result is totally inadequate but that does not make it wrong.

OK, now I really am out.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 23, 2011)

Ed @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> Dave Connor @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Thu Sep 22 said:
> ...



[quote="Ed] Of course it was, that is why you asked "_shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast? _" and then said that you understand the sentiments of family members who agree with the death penalty. As i said before, it is irrelevant what you or the family, friends of the victim want. So the answer to your question of whether they should they be executed, the answer is clearly no. If you disagree, and you obviously do, I have to ask "why?" And then unless someone can give a good explanation for all the issues I've brought up already then emotional appeals such as this simply have no weight. 


> Here is what I said (I summarized my point - did you read it?) and as I said, you missed it entirely:
> "My point is that I understand the sentiments and _reasoned positions _of the one remaining family member (husband/father) _and those _who see the death penalty as entirely appropriate in a case like this..."
> 
> So you may now respond to what I actually said which was that aside from any obvious emotional response anyone might have (you missed that I was mocking anyone dissing the legitimacy of that response) there is a reasoned response calling for the same penalty. You can remove all emotionalism from the equation and apply the criminal penalty under the law is what I basically said and am saying now.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 23, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.
> ...



Nah, you'll still read this. 
Defining justice differently or even better isn't helpful. My position on the matter dictates that justice is indeed either reward or punishment, to me. And I won't have the latter. At the point of eye for an eye, my words, your undeniably reasonable justice standard is not desirable for me. I prefer the injustice.
And we're not really arguing anymore. Again, the crux. I agree we've reached it. It's where it always was.


----------



## Ed (Sep 23, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> So you may now respond to what I actually said which was that aside from any obvious emotional response anyone might have (you missed that I was mocking anyone dissing the legitimacy of that response) there is a reasoned response calling for the same penalty. You can remove all emotionalism from the equation and apply the criminal penalty under the law is what I basically said and am saying now.



Then why did you ask... 

_shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast?"_

.. if you don't think the answer is "yes"?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 23, 2011)

Too bad Jay won't read this so he can be shown that he's wrong and I'm right as always.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 23, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> Too bad Jay won't read this so he can be shown that he's wrong and I'm right as always.



I didn't mean I wouldn't read it, just meant I would not continue to argue with those, like you, who disagree with me and therefore are clearly morally challenged :twisted:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 23, 2011)

You will too. Will too.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 23, 2011)

I've lost track of who is on first...

I am quite literally sick that they executed Troy Davis - he may well be guilty, that misses the point, may well be guilty, even guilty beyond a reasonable doubt simply don't cut it for me, even with a system that is biased to the defense!!

There is a big difference between an instantaneous reaction (e.g. someone enters my home and steals my guitars, much as I'd miss them, have a nice day - someone enters my home and threatens my children or my wife, beware, I'm actually a very good shot, and I am armed, and I will protect my family!) and institutional execution, especially the pathetically slow and laborious system we've put in place.

Think about it... we obviously know this is not something to trifle with or we would not have all the (alleged) safeguards in place. Would it not be much easier (and failsafe) to simply not execute people?

I'm even willing to stipulate that if I found the person that murdered my family I would not want to be held responsible for my reaction - I read these stories about people that forgive the person that hurt or killed a loved one and I am in awe - I don't think I could do that. Would I flip out and execute them myself? I'd like to think not, but I can't say, I've never been tested and hope never to be so tested!

I consider myself to be fairly conservative, but I simply can not abide state sponsored executions when the system that determines innocence or guilt is built on human frailty. It isn't even that I don't appreciate the arguments:
- prevent further violence - sorry two wrongs...
- revenge - oh yeah, I'd want it, someone needs to protect me from my baser desires!

But if and until we can provide absolute proof of guilt I don't understand how we can assign the ultimate punishment!!!!


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 23, 2011)

Ed @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> Then why did you ask... _shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast?"_
> 
> .. if you don't think the answer is "yes"?



Okay that's the 2nd time you missed the point of my opening statement which was an ironic response to the previous 'emotional response is bad' suppositions. But no matter just go ahead and respond to my actual point in my previous posts (where you will also find that I pointed out your missing the irony of my opening statement.) Right now you are taking issue with something that is not at all the essence of my view... Oh why not, I'll say it again, _ All emotional and prejudicial issues aside from any and all parties: Prosecute these heinous villains to the full extent of the law and apply all lawful penalties up to and including death. _If you don't like the law write your congressmen.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 24, 2011)

wst3 @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> I've lost track of who is on first...
> 
> I am quite literally sick that they executed Troy Davis - he may well be guilty, that misses the point, may well be guilty, even guilty beyond a reasonable doubt simply don't cut it for me, even with a system that is biased to the defense!!



All true. But even a casual glance at the facts makes this a particularly horrific case, because not only is it extremely UN-lilkely that Troy was guilty, it's extremely likely that the authorities knew this, and that that they even know who the real likely guilty party is. And they were too worried about saving face to do a thing about it. That really is sick-making.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/se ... sfeed=true


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 24, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> Ed @ Fri Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Then why did you ask... _shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast?"_
> ...




only the second time? with these two jokers ed and guy youre doing well Dave if its only twice! beat theses guys about the head with the guardian and youll get more sense.

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Ed (Sep 24, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> Ed @ Fri Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Then why did you ask... _shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast?"_
> ...




Why can't you answer the question? You said your point was not an emotional one, but you had asked... _shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast?"_... why did you ask this if you didn't think the answer is "yes"? What was your idea behind asking this question if not to give an example of a horrendous crime and rhetorically ask if they were bad enough for the death penalty?



> Oh why not, I'll say it again, _ All emotional and prejudicial issues aside from any and all parties: Prosecute these heinous villains to the full extent of the law and apply all lawful penalties up to and including death. _If you don't like the law write your congressmen



This is brainless, you said leave behind emotional issues but then just restated your opinion that these guys should be executed. I already knew you agreed with the death penalty, I'm asking you if you leave aside the "_emotional and prejudicial issues_" what is your argument* for it?* You have yet to give me an argument all you've done so far is just deny you made an emotional one.

Then you casually throw in the line that if I don't like the law write to my congressmen. Thankfully I don't live in the US and not all of the US has the death penalty as I'm sure you are aware. I have no idea how the current law would relate to a discussion of whether a law makes any sense. It seems 17 states do not have the death penalty, so I could easily tell you that they should not be executed because thats the law and you should take it up with your congressmen, which wouldn't make sense either. Plenty of people who agree with the death penalty think abortion shouldn't be legal, I guess since its the law they just need to suck it up.

Do you have an argument for the death penalty that makes any sense or don't you?


----------



## TheUnfinished (Sep 24, 2011)

George Caplan @ Fri Sep 23 said:


> TheUnfinished @ Fri Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if 35 counts as young these days, but if in twenty years time I'm as angry, defeatist and ride as you I'll be deeply disappointed.
> ...


You do realise there are lots and lots of people over 40, 50 and 60 who are actually happy people, enjoying their lives without recourse to anger, bitterness and vengeance? They're everywhere. I know loads of them. Often the standard of happiness in your life is dependent on the people you spend time with and interact with.

I plan to live to a ripe old age, enjoying the company of people who are joyful, have compassion, use logic and enjoy life. None of the people who are close to me and important to me are in favour of the death penalty, and I think that says a lot.

And therefore will avoid the disappointment you think I'm destined for.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 24, 2011)

I hate to invoke the word, but I think George is kinda trolling here in the off topic section. The replies are inconsistent, make no attempt to use logic, are filled with vitriol and abusive terms (I know the term "pinko" is so lame that its staggering to see it used at all in 2011, but when used in seemingly every other sentence it really doesn't look too good). I don't wanna make a big deal about it, but I've personally abandoned the idea of a rational debate with him. I guess I'm open to criticism myself here by highlighting this, but I'm not sure how else to point out troll-like behaviour. Someone will tell me if I'm out of line, no doubt...


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2011)

Ed @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> Why can't you answer the question? You said your point was not an emotional one, but you had asked... _shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast?"_... why did you ask this if you didn't think the answer is "yes"? What was your idea behind asking this question if not to give an example of a horrendous crime and rhetorically ask if they were bad enough for the death penalty?


Good heavens man! I've explained all this - why are you harping on the same thing? You latched onto my opening statement which was a deliberate cardboard cutout of a classic emotional response: like a line from the movies - do you get that now? Also and AGAIN I summarized my point which is what you should have responded to. Instead you latched onto what you thought was ammunition for your argument. That's very poor debating to miss someones point, irony and even humor and rant about it while completely missing what the fellow actually said. (i.e. go with the summation if there is one so you won't take anything out of context.)

I made my reasons perfectly clear on the death penalty but I will sate that again if you didn't get that either. There are penalties that we all have to deal with. These are designed to be appropriate to the offense. In cases such as the one I sighted, incarceration (even extended) which is applied to things like theft and other lower level crimes is not appropriate to torture and annihilation of an entire family. As I said, I agree with the classical death penalty and indeed the current provisions in the US Law.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2011)

George Caplan @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> Dave Connor @ Fri Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Fri Sep 23 said:
> ...



Funny George. I've gone to three times {at least} now and couldn't make things any clearer. I think Ed should be able to address what I am saying now. My prediction is that he will think I haven't answered the general philosophical question of the death penalty itself but in fact I have: The punishment should fit the crime.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> Dave Connor @ Fri Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > (once they've been tried and convicted.)
> ...


Apologies for not responding to this. I don't imagine there is a single who would want someone executed mistakenly. I don't have a problem with making the standards for even considering it as an option very high. In California we do - it's called _special circumstances. _ I have seen too many murderers like Ted Bundy panic and do everything under the sun to avoid execution. All criminals know what is a capitol offense and know the consequences. I think that law needs to hang over the heads of every one of em and every potential murdering thug.


----------



## Ed (Sep 24, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> Ed @ Sat Sep 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't you answer the question? You said your point was not an emotional one, but you had asked... _shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast?"_... why did you ask this if you didn't think the answer is "yes"? What was your idea behind asking this question if not to give an example of a horrendous crime and rhetorically ask if they were bad enough for the death penalty?
> ...



Apparently Im too stupid to understand you, its all my fault of course none of it is your inability to make yourself clear.



> There are penalties that we all have to deal with. These are designed to be appropriate to the offense.



You have still not addressed any question, this is not an argument and it is not a reason. It is just your opinion, *I already know that you agree with the death penalty*, I am asking you to provide a logical and rational argument for the death penalty, how to apply that logic consistently to the entire justice system and how we can ensure that innocent people do not get executed. You also say you agree with current laws, yet current laws means plenty of innocent people get put to death and Ive already given you some sources for that, many more would be executed if the whole US had the death penalty along with other countries.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 24, 2011)

I don't think that the anti-death penalty people (I am one) are getting the point.

The pro-death penalty people seem to believe that to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs, meaning that if a few innocent people have to die to keep a punitive system of execution in operation, well then, that's just the way it is.

This is an abhorrent point of view to me, but I've seen it stated too many times not to believe there are a fair amount of people who actually seem to feel this way, Dave among them. Otherwise, they couldn't possibly countenance the death penalty.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2011)

Ed @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> Apparently Im too stupid to understand you, its all my fault of course none of it is your inability to make yourself clear.


Your inability to understand my repeated and consistent remarks is obviously due to something on your end but I doubt it's stupidity with a guy as bright as you. You're just fueled with a point of view and agenda that has you in a rush to indict a contrary view and triumph with your own. The problem with that is you're hurting your own cause by appearing to be slow on the uptake and not genuinely engaging the other party with their actual position. The other party is going to do what I've done which is not build upon such a shaky foundation and answer any further questions until they feel there is a genuine communication on the basic premise. I'm guessing you understand this perfectly. If you would like to continue then go ahead and ask further questions.


----------



## Ed (Sep 24, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> Your inability to understand my repeated and consistent remarks is obviously due to something on your end but I doubt it's stupidity with a guy as bright as you. You're just fueled with a point of view and agenda that has you in a rush to indict a contrary view and triumph with your own. The problem with that is you're hurting your own cause by appearing to be slow on the uptake and not genuinely engaging the other party with their actual position. The other party is going to do what I've done which is not build upon such a shaky foundation and answer any further questions until they feel there is a genuine communication on the basic premise. I'm guessing you understand this perfectly. *If you would like to continue then go ahead and ask further questions*.


You have yet to deal with the first one

I guess I have to make this really simple for you.

1. Do you agree with the death penalty? yes or no. (we know the answer is yes)

2. *WHY *do you agree with the death penalty? (you may not use any emotional arguments. ) 

You saying that say that "the punishment should fit the crime" do not explain the reasons why you believe the death penalty is logical and reasonable, since you cannot possibly apply that equally and is a non answer, it is like simply answering yes to the first question, it explains nothing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 24, 2011)

Larry, I think I for one do get the omelet idea. This is what I wrote a few pages ago:

"And I reject his opinion that the occasional screw-up is just part of the cost of doing business. I'd say he's stupid for saying that, except that you've forbidden me."

But that doesn't mean I have anything else to say on the subject.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2011)

Ed @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> I guess I have to make this really simple for you.


Naw, simple doesn't work. It's taken me 4 or 5 post's just to get you anywhere near understanding my 1st post. That's the one where you misquoted me, edited what I said to make it look like I said something else and then stayed with it apparently till now. Why would you undermine your credibility that way? And you wonder why people *don't answer your questions*? Or why* people are saying they didn't say what they said*? It's because they didn't say it. 

Ed, slow down and be more careful and thoughtful. You don't need to do any of that kind of crap. You're a very bright guy so stop undermining yourself with gotcha tactics based on distortions.

Now, I have answered your second question as to the logic and reasoning of the death penalty when I said, _I agree with the classical death penalty._ That is, I agree with all the logic and reasoning applied over centuries and until now as to the maintenance of that law. As I said in another post, criminals are acutely aware of that penalty and go kicking and screaming to avoid it as did Ted Bundy and countless others. I've seen and heard so many murderers and their lawyers sweat bullets to beat that penalty I've lost count. I want that law hanging over their head. I want animals who destroy hundreds of lives to forfeit their own as a penalty. 

If you can convince me that a penalty for going 120 in a school zone is unreasonable and illogical than you will have no problem convincing me that mass murder should carry no penalty as well. The same logic applies to both.


----------



## Ed (Sep 24, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> Why would you undermine your credibility that way? And you wonder why people *don't answer your questions*? Or why* people are saying they didn't say what they said*? It's because they didn't say it.



I'm perfectly happy to concede that I may have misunderstood you, I don't see how I could have and believe you are beating about the bush in order to not have to deal with any of the issues, but as yet you haven't explained what you really think or why my comments don't apply. 

You spend a lot of time telling me what you "didn't" say but when I ask you to clarify and tell me what you *actually *think and how to explain *why *you agree with the death penalty and what *argument* you can present for it you keep handwaving it. Unless you count the times you use these emotional appeals, which don't count.




> Now, I have answered your second question as to the logic and reasoning of the death penalty when I said, _I agree with the classical death penalty._ That is, I agree with all the logic and reasoning applied over centuries and until now as to the maintenance of that law.



This is as close as i've gotten to something solid but this doesn't contain an argument. 

They used to and still do in certain countries cut thieves hands off. Do you agree with that? How about stoning to death? It would be a fallacy of course to suggest that just because its been practised before means its logical or moral today, but you specifically say that it was because of _logic _and _reason _that the death penalty has been around for so long and why its still reasonable today. So what is it? Are you going to explain it or not? Otherwise I guess we can conclude that your only real argument so far as been that it was practised in the past.





> As I said in another post, criminals are acutely aware of that penalty and go kicking and screaming to avoid it as did Ted Bundy and countless others. I've seen and heard so many murderers and their lawyers sweat bullets to beat that penalty I've lost count. I want that law hanging over their head. I want animals who destroy hundreds of lives to forfeit their own as a penalty.



They are going to do that anyway, with or without the death penalty. 

I already gave you the sources that showed documented cases where hundreds of people were let free on death row because of new DNA evidence not originally available at the time of their conviction demonstrated their innocence. This shows that a lot of innocent people get executed. 

You say your argument isn't emotional but then say very emotionally charged things like _"I want animals who destroy hundreds of lives to forfeit their own as a penalty."_ how much more emotional can you get? I already asked you originally how you would apply this kind of logic equally and you ignore me each and every time. What happens if someone severely tortures and abuses someone, that person and their family has had their lives ruined, but no one has died. Do you have some other kind of punishment in mind the current system doesn't currently use for cases like that? Why do you treat murder completely differently than you do every other crime? And you do, because we all know you wouldn't ever apply these reasoning's to other situations in the justice system. Thats why these emotional arguments don't make any sense and why I'm trying to get you to give me a proper one.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2011)

Ed, you're doing all the tap dancing around things here and still responding as if you didn't understand my first point. I'll go ahead an innumerate a couple of points so you can see them.

1. An emotional response is totally valid from any party (including me.) The fact that I make an emotional statement has no bearing on my objective stance. However, ALL emotional issues should be jettisoned when applying the law. Emotions are not necessary nor should they be included in the judicial process. But this is Law 101 Ed and I had hoped to easily proceed from there but this is... I've lost count of how many times I've made this point. You will have to ask yourself why you refuse to see this point I've made over and over. (Really you need to take a look at that because it stymies the process. Honestly I've never met anyone who persistently does this the way you do. I guess you genuinely are not aware of it.)

2. It is logical and reasonable to penalize someone for any crime. The death penalty is one of those penalties. No penalty should be unjustly applied therefore the death penalty being without redress should {only even be considered} when the crime is of a nature to demand a commensurate response: i.e. the classical death penalty.

3. I am aware of the death penalty and it is a huge deterrent to me personally (along with countless other penalties.) Convicted felons and potential murderers have a similar awareness to my own given their particular enterprise. If it deters even a small percentage from killing your child or best friend then let it stand. 

4. I've seen interviews with so many cons talking about knowing if they did this or that they would get so many years or even executed. These guys know the criminal code better than most lawyers. Often they will flee to areas where they either can't be prosecuted or there is no death penalty. The law deters people everyday all day long. That's why Polanski isn't sunning on the beach in California.


----------



## midphase (Sep 24, 2011)

I think deterrents work to some degree for people who are only criminal up to a certain point (or psychopathic up to a certain point). I don't think a guy bent on murdering someone is sitting calmly debating all of the different repercussions of the law before committing the crime...doesn't work that way.

It's a bit like copy protection for sample libraries, for most people who are basically honest, it's a deterrent that keeps them honest. For people bent on stealing them...copy protection makes no difference whatsoever.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2011)

midphase @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> I think deterrents work to some degree for people who are only criminal up to a certain point (or psychopathic up to a certain point). I don't think a guy bent on murdering someone is sitting calmly debating all of the different repercussions of the law before committing the crime...doesn't work that way.
> 
> It's a bit like copy protection for sample libraries, for most people who are basically honest, it's a deterrent that keeps them honest. For people bent on stealing them...copy protection makes no difference whatsoever.



Yes, but do you want the violator to be fined a nickel or something that reflects the level of offense? If a psychopath is completely undeterred by the potential consequences that shouldn't void the consequences.


----------



## Ed (Sep 24, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> 1. An emotional response is totally valid from any party (including me.)



I agree.



> The fact that I make an emotional statement has no bearing on my objective stance
> .



I agree. I do wish you would stop making very emotional sounding arguments. 



> However, ALL emotional issues should be jettisoned when applying the law. Emotions are not necessary nor should they be included in the judicial process.



Awesome. Cant wait to read about the logical and reasonable argument for the death penalty.



> 2. It is logical and reasonable to penalize someone for any crime. The death penalty is one of those penalties. No penalty should be unjustly applied therefore the death penalty being without redress should {only even be considered} when the crime is of a nature to demand a commensurate response: i.e. the classical death penalty.



Oh dear, first hurdle... 

It *is *logical and reasonable to penalize someone for a crime, of course. You then essentially take a long winded approach of saying that the death penalty is reasonable because they killed someone so you can take their life as well. ie. An eye for an eye. That however is not reasonable because *you do not do this for any other crime. * As I keep trying to tell you.






> 3. I am aware of the death penalty and it is a huge deterrent to me personally (along with countless other penalties.)



A "huge" deterrent? "HUGE" really?? Wow this is like debating fundamentalists who claim the only reason they dont go raping and killing is because they think their god says they shouldn't. 

Data has already been presented several times in this thread that show it is not, statistically, a deterrent and may even show the opposite. Also, if it being a deterrent is valid, then how about we levy harsher punishments on rapists or paedophiles? What do you think should happen to them? How about we just execute them, that would surely be a deterrent don't you think? So no it doesn't make logical sense and neither does the data, it seems, support this argument,






> If it deters even a small percentage from killing your child or best friend then let it stand.



4 points later and you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that hundreds and hundreds of people have been put to death that were innocent and many more would be if the whole country were to take it up along with other countries like the UK. How would you like it if someone in your family was executed for a crime they didn't commit? You have still not explained how to implement the death penalty in a way that stops innocent people from being killed. You can still lock up a criminal but you can't take back an innocent persons life if you were wrong. Perhaps you think that innocent people being killed by the state for something they didn't do is worth it. 



> 4. I've seen interviews with so many cons talking about knowing if they did this or that they would get so many years or even executed. These guys know the criminal code better than most lawyers. Often they will flee to areas where they either can't be prosecuted or there is no death penalty. The law deters people everyday all day long. That's why Polanski isn't sunning on the beach in California.



Because if every state had the death penalty all these criminals would probably start selling cookies at charity bake sales. j/k. Why is it that the data appears to disagree with you? No ones even touched it, just talked over it as if it wasn't there.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 24, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> If a psychopath is completely undeterred by the potential consequences that shouldn't void the consequences.



Actually the whole issue of psychopathy is really pretty complicated. Psychopaths are frequently intelligent (though what they say and do often makes little sense when scrutinized), and they don't usually want bad things to happen to them, so they're often pretty canny and slippery figures. I think people get psychotic behaviour confused with psychopathic behaviour - a psychopath's defining characteristic is a lack of empathy, while a psychotic person has lost contact with reality.

Anyway, it goes without saying that many murderers aren't psychopaths, and equally the vast majority of psychopaths aren't murderers either, so basing a policy on the behaviour psychopaths isn't a great idea.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 24, 2011)

Okay-I guess I have to ask Dave directly:

Dave, what do you think about the fact that a fair amount of demonstrable mistakes have been made, ending up with innocent people being executed? Do you simply see it as a numbers game-" too bad, but stuff happens, and the greater good is being served by having the death penalty"?

Actually, rather than put words in your mouth, would you explain your position on the wrongful execution of innocent people and how that figures into your stance on the death penalty?


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 24, 2011)

Okay-I guess I have to ask Dave directly:

Dave, what do you think about the fact that a fair amount of demonstrable mistakes have been made, ending up with innocent people being executed? Do you simply see it as a numbers game-" too bad, but stuff happens, and the greater good is being served by having the death penalty"?

Actually, rather than put words in your mouth, would you explain your position on the wrongful execution of innocent people and how that figures into your stance on the death penalty?


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2011)

Well I have addressed that actually. The death penalty should only be considered in the most egregious cases. In California we have what's called special circumstances. Therefore we have very few executions because it's a very high threshold. 

I feel the same way about executing the wrong person as probably you or anyone else. It shouldn't happen. But that doesn't mean that iron clad cases where there's a living witness who watched his entire family raped, tortured and burned to death shouldn't have that penalty as an option. There's another side of the coin here folks.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 24, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> Well I have addressed that actually. The death penalty should only be considered in the most egregious cases. In California we have what's called special circumstances. Therefore we have very few executions because it's a very high threshold.
> 
> I feel the same way about executing the wrong person as probably you or anyone else. It shouldn't happen. But that doesn't mean that iron clad cases where there's a living witness who watched his entire family raped, tortured and burned to death shouldn't have that penalty as an option. There's another side of the coin here folks.



Okay, here are possible scenarios.

1.The "living witness" was actually the killer, and lied.
2. The "living witness" was wrong in his/her ID, and there was no DNA, but he/she convinced the jury.
3.The "living witness" was led towards an identification by an over-zealous cop/prosecutor, or evidence was planted.

Unlikely as these scenarios may be, my point is that NOTHING is "ironclad", so there will be some innocents executed. Your response?


----------



## Ed (Sep 24, 2011)

In case some have forgotten:

"_Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed, Judge Says"_
- New York Times - 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/natio ... 8b&ei=5070

"_How Many Innocent Inmates Are Executed?"_
- American Bar Association - 1997:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... thpen.html


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 24, 2011)

> I am aware of the death penalty and it is a huge deterrent to me personally



Yow! I'd better be careful not to piss you off when the death penalty is finally dispensed with in this country!

(And by the way I predict it will be; it's just a matter of time like every other archaic law in our society.)


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2011)

Ed @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> Oh dear, first hurdle...
> 
> It *is *logical and reasonable to penalize someone for a crime, of course. You then essentially take a long winded approach of saying that the death penalty is reasonable because they killed someone so you can take their life as well. ie. An eye for an eye. That however is not reasonable because *you do not do this for any other crime. * As I keep trying to tell you.



Geez whaddya know you have completely missed my point on this very issue which I've made countless times now - I'm shocked. Also, editing or putting words in someone's mouth is such a colossal no-no in debating - why don't you know that? It disqualifies you. There are several things you just wrote which I never said or inferred. It's cheap and shoddy. Maybe ask, _Is this where you're coming from... eye for an eye?_ then when the guy says no you can find out what he's really saying instead of going on a tangent about something you came up.

3. I am aware of the death penalty and it is a huge deterrent to me personally (along with countless other penalties.)



Ed @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> A "huge" deterrent? "HUGE" really?? Wow this is like debating fundamentalists who claim the only reason they dont go raping and killing is because they think their god says they shouldn't.


Well gravity is a huge deterrent to jumping off a cliff and informs my daily life - does that help you understand the point? Are you deterred by any laws? For example speeding? If your answer is yes - than why? Are you trying to avoid the attendant penalties? If you are abiding by any law to avoid the penalty then you are proving that penalties have an effect on you - daily. Also that the principle is sound and even practiced by you. Or are you saying nothing is a HUGE deterrent to you? If anything is such, then you are being a hypocrite. I'll ignore the childish fundamentalist nonsense you spouted. I tried to tell you you don't need that kind of crap which should be beneath you. 



Ed @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> Data has already been presented several times in this thread that show it is not, statistically, a deterrent and may even show the opposite. Also, if it being a deterrent is valid, then how about we levy harsher punishments on rapists or paedophiles? What do you think should happen to them? How about we just execute them, that would surely be a deterrent don't you think? So no it doesn't make logical sense and neither does the data, it seems, support this argument



Ed, read my posts!!!! I have sighted the California special circumstances law as a model several times already. 13 people have been executed here in the last 35 years. But you aren't quoting those particular statistics. There are statistics on both sides of just about every argument since time began. Statistics seem to be your religion but I don't exalt them as the only consideration in every argument on earth.




Ed @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> 4 points later and you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that hundreds and hundreds of people have been put to death that were innocent and many more would be if the whole country were to take it up along with other countries like the UK. How would you like it if someone in your family was executed for a crime they didn't commit? You have still not explained how to implement the death penalty in a way that stops innocent people from being killed. You can still lock up a criminal but you can't take back an innocent persons life if you were wrong. Perhaps you think that innocent people being killed by the state for something they didn't do is worth it.



Yes I have - prior to this and again above. Just read my answers to you and others here and you will see I've addressed all your points. I want you do that like it's a freaking homework assignment because you really have an issue allowing clear written information in from other parties. I've seen you do this here with others but I don't bother to track with it. Now I know what all those circular arguments and dozens of redundant posts of yours are about.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 24, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> > I am aware of the death penalty and it is a huge deterrent to me personally
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Classic point, N.B. The moment they decriminalize murder, watch out. I'm goin' huntin'.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 24, 2011)

Just so you know: Dave and I are friends, so the tone in which I wrote that isn't quite as severe as it looked.

And to be fair even my wife, who's as liberal as I am about every other issue, is in favor of the death penalty for crimes against children. The reason I give her special dispensation to disagree with me about capital punishment is that it's easy to understand why people are in favor of it.

Also, her argument is that people who prey on children can't be rehabilitated - they're always going to be sick. I consider that irrelevant (people who commit what are currently capital offenses must not be let loose even if they are rehabilitated), but I do understand her point.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2011)

True enough. Nick and I have nothing but pleasant conversation when we hang. He knows I'm a red-neck m-fer and I know he's an avowed communist dictator bent on the destruction of bad music throughout the world.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 24, 2011)

And I'm okay with that.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2011)

Ed, I see that you took my _commensurate penalty_ statement to mean an eye for an eye so maybe I should have been more understanding with that. However I had already made the point a couple of times that I didn't believe that incarceration was an adequate penalty for heinous crimes: i.e throw them in prison for a longer period than the auto thieves and embezzlers.

It is already US law that there are various degrees of murder and therefore various penalties. You are saying (I believe) that incarceration should be the penalty for ALL degrees of murder. I am saying that the various degrees should have commensurate degrees of penalties up to and including death. That is not an eye for an eye. That is the allowance for the death penalty under very specific circumstances.

Also I didn't turn a deaf ear to the _hundreds of false executions_ point and in fact addressed that as well sighting the California model as a way of rectifying a towering injustice like that.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 24, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> Okay, here are possible scenarios.
> 
> 1.The "living witness" was actually the killer, and lied.
> 2. The "living witness" was wrong in his/her ID, and there was no DNA, but he/she convinced the jury.
> ...



Seems like a very good post to me. How does the California "Special Circumstance" law relate to the above? Are there any known cases of questionable guilt under this law?


----------



## midphase (Sep 25, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> midphase @ Sat Sep 24 said:
> 
> 
> > I think deterrents work to some degree for people who are only criminal up to a certain point (or psychopathic up to a certain point). I don't think a guy bent on murdering someone is sitting calmly debating all of the different repercussions of the law before committing the crime...doesn't work that way.
> ...



I don't want anybody killed as a punishment no matter what they did. I don't care if they raped the pope's dead mom and then crapped in her mouth, I just don't think that death is a suitable punishment no matter what the crime is.

I think life in jail for the worst offenders is an appropriate punishment, in many ways much worse than death. There is absolutely no data showing that violent crimes in the USA are less than in countries with no death penalty, the death-as-deterrent logic makes no sense.


----------



## lux (Sep 25, 2011)

There is no way to change mind on this matter. If you accept once that you will would someone by law that will not change durig your life.

Its more than 30 years that people talk about death penalty and still the discussion is at the point it once was. Nothing really changes. No matter what one writes. Trying to convince people with more than 30 years to change their mind on the subject is nearly impossible.

Its just a matter of votes actually. Younger people have obviously less attitude for killing people by law. Convincing young people to move their asses and vote for candidates which are against death penalty will make the change. United States are known worldwide for having a very low voters percentage. 

So maybe moving a small percentage of youngs to express their vote with this matter in mind could make a change.


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 25, 2011)

TheUnfinished @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> And therefore will avoid the disappointment you think I'm destined for.



you wont. and the reason why you wont is because you think regardless of whether i or anyone else agrees with your on anyone elses principles. the more you are able to think the worse it gets as you get older. i am 60 and about to retire in a matter of months and age had nothing to do with happy happy happy. or money. you can be happy abd still be disappointed. you will understand because you think. lack of thinking and lack of imagination has been a great help to stupid people over time. they are the lucky ones in a lot of ways but you and i have to pay for that.


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 25, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Sep 24 said:


> The reason I give her special dispensation to disagree with me about capital punishment



well thats very nice of you.


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 25, 2011)

lux @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> There is no way to change mind on this matter. If you accept once that you will would someone by law that will not change durig your life.
> 
> Its more than 30 years that people talk about death penalty and still the discussion is at the point it once was. Nothing really changes. No matter what one writes. Trying to convince people with more than 30 years to change their mind on the subject is nearly impossible.
> 
> ...



I know what you mean, but looking for ANYTHING positive out of the Troy Davis scandal, it's high profile botch ups that do tend to change people's mind (in the same way that no-one cared how badly the Murdoch empire behaved til it erased the answerphone messages of a dead girl, then suddenly everything changed). It might be by degrees - so from gung ho to a more cautious "special cases" California approach, but any improvement from the sub-human process that Georgia inflicts on its citizens at the moment is an improvement. Every innocent life saved is worthwhile, so I do hope this galvanizes the public.


----------



## lux (Sep 25, 2011)

I understand Guy but problem with death penalty is that all people which are in favour feel patronized whatever you say.

so my pratical guess is, why spending time trying to change mind to people which feels they wont listen even before you start telling anything. Votes and majority, thats the key. They'll have to be beaten with democracy instruments. They will then figure out how to live in a country where rules changed. Their business.

I have not a precise idea of how things work in the US, but the way here is forcing candidates to express on a certain matter as it is considered mandatory to catch people's consideration. Social networks can help. And, most of all, raising up the percentage of voters with motivational campaigns.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 25, 2011)

lux @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> I understand Guy but problem with death penalty is that all people which are in favour feel patronized whatever you say.
> 
> so my pratical guess is, why spending time trying to change mind to people which feels they wont listen even before you start telling anything. Votes and majority, thats the key. They'll have to be beaten with democracy instruments. They will then figure out how to live in a country where rules changed. Their business.
> 
> I have not a precise idea of how things work in the US, but the way here is forcing candidates to express on a certain matter as it is considered mandatory to catch people's consideration. Social networks can help. And, most of all, raising up the percentage of voters with motivational campaigns.



All those things are useful. I'm not sure I'm quite so bleak with the "all people which are in favour feel patronized whatever you say". Some here on this thread are in favour broadly but have argued for a more careful or nuanced approach, condemning the gung-ho Georgia mentality. It's not irrational to support the death penalty of course, and there are plenty who would be persuaded by high profile miscarraiges of justice that it doesn't work well in practice.

Of course there will be some who aren't open to reason no matter how many innocent people are slaughtered, but I'd hope they're in the minority.


----------



## Ed (Sep 25, 2011)

I am so bored with this argument, the debate was already over on page 3 with my reply to Jose's post, nothing new has been presented since. So far no death penalty advocate has actually addressed any of the arguments or data brought up in the first 3 pages. This *is *a religious issue for pro-death penalty advocates which is why there's no way to convince them to start using science and rationality to make an argument. Dave accuses me every time of ignoring what he writes and then ignores every single one of my critical points, such as my question about having the death penalty for other crimes such as paedophilia or rape, because Im trying to get them to understand they they will not use the same logic they use for the death penalty and apply it to the rest of the justice system. They already know it wouldn't work which is why they refuse to acknowledge it and skirt around it. I'm also not sure why he thinks California's special circumstances means anything, the fact that he really believes it is relevant here I guess just shows that he either can't understand me or refuses to. Either way, I'm bored of trying to explain it and don't have the time or the energy to keep repeating myself over and over. Have fun


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 25, 2011)

Ed @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> Dave accuses me every time of ignoring what he writes and then ignores every single one of my critical points, such as my question about having the death penalty for other crimes such as paedophilia or rape, because Im trying to get them to understand they they will not use the same logic they use for the death penalty and apply it to the rest of the justice system.



The entire basis of my argument has to do with capitol murder so I ignored your application of those crimes since I considered them spurious. 

You have agreed it's logical for penalties to be applied. I include a penalty for a particular crime that you don't happen to like but the logic is identical. I further addressed it's application in the real world and the statistical results which is a handful of executions (13 in 35 years in California) All very logical and simply put.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2011)

Lux wrote:



> Trying to convince people with more than 30 years to change their mind on the subject is nearly impossible.



Again, I predict that you'll be surprised. We've had 30 years of increasingly radical conservative politics in the US (and right now are suffering with the predictably disastrous results), but even that hasn't stopped social progress.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 25, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> The entire basis of my argument has to do with capitol murder so I ignored your application of those crimes since I considered them spurious.



And the entire basis of Ed's is that it's irrational to only look at murder, so I declare that an official stalemate.

Nick - I agree. Very long term, the death penalty is doomed, and good riddance.


----------



## Ed (Sep 25, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> The entire basis of my argument has to do with capitol murder so I ignored your application of those crimes since I considered them spurious.
> 
> You have agreed it's logical for penalties to be applied. I include a penalty for a particular crime that you don't happen to like but the logic is identical.



As i have said over and over, the arguments you use *for *the death penalty you do not apply to other crimes, you draw an arbitrary distinction between murder and everything else for no reason other than your own feelings. For example, you say its a deterrent. Well then if thats an argument for the the death penalty, then death would be a deterrent to *any *crime and there are a whole host of other heinous crimes we could deter with the death penalty. Lets ignore the fact that the data says it isn't a deterrent, why then not have the death penalty for crimes such as rape or child molestation? What is it about _murder _that requires you to treat so differently?

I'll tell you why, because you arbitrarily decide that with murder *unlike any other crime, * a killer should give up *their *lives because they have taken *another's* life. This is exactly the "an eye for an eye" thinking, but we don't rape rapists, or torture those who have tortured or abuse abusers. If you don't advocate "an eye for an eye" with murder, then why execute murderers? Why wouldn't you treat it as any other crime and just lock them away? There's certainly no shortage of disgusting human beings that do NOT kill anyone but sure have caused irreversible harm to hundreds of lives through other means, but we only lock them up. No death penalty advocates that i can see are campaigning to see any stricter punishments upon these crimes for the same reasons, they just want longer jail sentences. Why aren't they suggesting we punish rapists by sexually assaulting them, if someone beat someone up then they should be beat up, if someone sets someone on fire and burns all their skin off but they didn't die, then they should have all their skin burnt off as well. But no, its just jail... unless its murder, then its totally different. As I say its an arbitrary distinction.

The only point you can apply to all crimes is that its "_logical and reasonable to penalize someone for any crime._" Well sure, but there is a long distance between penalizing someone for a crime and arriving at the death penalty, or sexually assulting rapists or burning someones skin off if they did that to someone else.

I am supportive of the death penalty in theory (in that I dont believe everyone has the right to life) as I have said many times now I just cannot see how to implement that in any way consistently to the entire justice system that makes any sense and ensure that innocent people don't get executed. 

Guy is right in that we have come to a stalemate, until you can give us a reason for treating murder differently with a logical reason or reasons that does not rely on personal feelings or emotions or vague "_murderers should give up their lives_" sentiments (_which as I say you do not apply to other crimes_) then there's nowhere else to go on the subject.



> I include a penalty for a particular crime that you don't happen to like but the logic is identical.



You apparently believe that all the innocent people who have been executed or were were on death row when they were found innocent later is worth it, I however do not. The logic is not identical because when I ask someone that is pro death penalty why they think that it *is *worth it, they will say things like this ... 

_" shouldn't they fry those two flaming assholes that raped, tortured and burned practically an entire family on the east coast? ".... "Rabid animals get put down all the time"... "Why are people so worried about the killers? The families are already suffering." ... "I want animals who destroy hundreds of lives to forfeit their own as a penalty"_

 


> I further addressed it's application in the real world and the statistical results which is a handful of executions (13 in 35 years in California) All very logical and simply put.



If you're suggesting that 13 innocent people in 35 years have been executed in California - which btw I would say is still unacceptable - as if to argue that innocent people do not get sentenced to death in any significant number then I have already provided plenty more examples for you that no one has touched. You brought up California's Special Circumstances, as if this somehow stopped innocent people being executed, I fail to see how it does that either and could even help do the opposite in some cases.

"_Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed, Judge Says"_
- New York Times - 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/natio ... 8b&ei=5070

"_How Many Innocent Inmates Are Executed?"_
- American Bar Association - 1997:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... thpen.html


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 25, 2011)

I don't want to change Dave's mind. I don't agree that minds CAN'T be changed, but I'm more interested in understanding peoples' mindsets. I don't think I'm always right-there are only two people at any one time who can ALWAYS be right- and those two slots are already taken up by Nick B and Jay A :wink: 

In the ideal, I'd like Dave to answer my short, direct questions directly, but that doesn't seem likely, so I'll just read along from here.


----------



## lux (Sep 25, 2011)

I'm not meaning that minds cannot be changed at all. Its just a waste of time.

People which are in favour of a deathly penalty dont need to be convinced, just need to be beaten. Using democracy tools.

That will prolly save more lives than trying to argue for ages.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 25, 2011)

lux @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> I'm not meaning that minds cannot be changed at all. Its just a waste of time.
> 
> People which are in favour of a deathly penalty dont need to be convinced, just need to be beaten. Using democracy tools.
> 
> That will prolly save more lives than trying to argue for ages.



Yes, but debate is stimulating and instructive, Luca. I often enjoy it and sometimes learn something from it. In my observations, you seem to enjoy it as well.


----------



## Ed (Sep 25, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> In my observations, you seem to enjoy it as well.



Lux is always happy, look at his happy little face


----------



## lux (Sep 25, 2011)

yup i'm happy and orange.

Usually i enjoy discussion. .I'll be honest, i feel slightly irritated having to discuss about someone's life or death like it was colour of my house's walls, and how much i'm goin to save on the budget using a certain colour or another.

Its not a matter for discussions imho. Its a matter for action.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 25, 2011)

lux @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> yup i'm happy and orange.
> 
> Usually i enjoy discussion. .I'll be honest, i feel slightly irritated having to discuss about someone's life or death like it was colour of my house's walls, and how much i'm goin to save on the budget using a certain colour or another.
> 
> Its not a matter for discussions imho. Its a matter for action.



Okay, it's an issue that you're passionate about. Irritated or not, you chimed in.
Passion feels great. It's energizing. There's nothing like a feeling of rectitude-just ask Nick!

(I AM gonna get a rise outa Nick eventually)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2011)

I'm feeling a pain in my rectitude.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2011)

And by the way you're wrong. Jay A is not right; only I am.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 25, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> I don't want to change Dave's mind. I don't agree that minds CAN'T be changed, but I'm more interested in understanding peoples' mindsets. I don't think I'm always right-there are only two people at any one time who can ALWAYS be right- and those two slots are already taken up by Nick B and Jay A :wink:



Hey, not true, I admit to being wrong at least twice:

1. I said nobody is almost always right, forgetting about myself.

2. I said nobody has his head up his butt more than Michael Moore, forgetting about Batzdorf.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 25, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> And by the way you're wrong. Jay A is not right; only I am.



Oh right-he just THINKS he is, and you actually are. Right, I mean.

Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 25, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sun Sep 25 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want to change Dave's mind. I don't agree that minds CAN'T be changed, but I'm more interested in understanding peoples' mindsets. I don't think I'm always right-there are only two people at any one time who can ALWAYS be right- and those two slots are already taken up by Nick B and Jay A :wink:
> ...



As to #2, it would never, ever fit.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 25, 2011)

Oh, and a third thing I admit to being wrong about previously: I used to be against the death penalty.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 25, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> Oh, and a third thing I admit to being wrong about previously: I used to be against the death penalty.



Actually, Jay, I have a fifth one in the bank( as I'm sure you remember)! :wink: ...and the sixth would be changing your mind about the death penalty.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2011)

I'm not limber enough to try that, and Michael Moore wouldn't be interested in what's up there.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 25, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and a third thing I admit to being wrong about previously: I used to be against the death penalty.
> ...



What about the fourth one?


----------



## lux (Sep 26, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Sep 25 said:


> lux @ Sun Sep 25 said:
> 
> 
> > yup i'm happy and orange.
> ...



no, not much passionate. Also I think its pretty much a cultural and historical difference. We've been there, done that. Probably having million deaths at sight in the second war changed minds enough. In all families here there's at least a story about one or more lives at risk and tried to be saved during the second war. I've heard more than one from my granma.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 26, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Sep 26 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sun Sep 25 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 25 said:
> ...



I have to take the Fifth on that.

(and I set that up, knowing you could not resist. When oh when will you learn that I'm always a step ahead. :::sigh::


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 26, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Mon Sep 26 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Sep 26 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Sun Sep 25 said:
> ...



I bow to a keener mind.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 26, 2011)

Ha! Finally!


----------

