Death Penalty

YES THEY CAN.

Sure

Your opinion has been decimated by my above post. All you have left is point 3...

What justifies vengeance? Furthermore, would you consequently advocate vengeance as a general rule of law? Do you really think that would be acceptable?

Actually lethal injection is quite painful.

Again, why? You keep saying 'because its right'. But my question is - why is it right and what makes it so?


Also, what about the counterargument - there can be no recourse if the person executed is alter found innocent.

 

Your argument is hypocritical. You want them to die, but you dont want them to die in prison! LOL No, even if the prison system needs to be improved there is still no reason they cant be confined, all it means is improvement is necessary and there are plenty of groups committees and organizations dedicated to those ends:
http://iapdeathsincustody.independent.gov.uk/news/npsa-launch-patient-safety-in-prisons-project/
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/220485.pdf
http://law.wustl.edu/journal/22/p175dennehynantel.pdf

 

All invalid, because they are based on capital punishment whereby :

1. The executions were not public (in fact they were hidden from view, deep within the prison).

2. The method of execution was relatively painfree (usually lethal injection).

3. The ludicrous appeals process allowed the condemned prison to continue to live for as long as 35 years after the conviction (in a place with 3 meals a day, a roof, clean clothes, and various amenities)

 

1. I don't know where you got the idea I don't want then to die in prison. Where else would they die ? LOL.

2. I just gave you the reason why they can't be confined - they can continue to kill, and it's unjust to the victims. And if improvement is necessary then, as I said, THEN maybe life imprisonment could be an option, but even then, this would still be an injustice to the victims.

 

1. What they CAN do, isn't the question. What they do is the question, and up to now they're not doing it (preventing killing.) And since they haven't stopped it, it is highly questionable that your statement ("YES THEY CAN") has a shred of validity.

2. I said nothing about vengenance, you said that.

3. You have decimated nothing. I have refuted everything you've said. You've shown no way to insure that imprisoned killers will stop killing, or even shown any evidence that such a goal is even attainable at all.

4. LOL. Lethal injection is really painful, huh ? LOL. That was worth 2 LOLs. Would you prefer burning at the stake, beheading, hanging, or the electric chair ? Don't be ridiculous.

5. As I already said, execution should be reserved for only those whose guilt is indisputable (video recording of the crime for instance)

 

Consider the irresponsibility of NOT executing killlers (when prisons haven't been able to stop them), and the injustice to the victims (and their families) who get killed by imprisoned murderers. What would you say to the families of the people who Al Capone had killled, or same thing from crime bosses in prison today ?

Would you tell them that their now dead husband will be brought back to life by "plenty of groups, committees and organizations" who are concerned about in-prison crime ?

 

No. You are repeatedly told why yet you ignore the answer. For some reason you believe you have some unanswerable question that is supposed to stop everyone in their tracks and prove that the death penalty is wrong.

Your in denial and are infactuated by your question. Get over it.

Listen again. The death penalty is justified because it is fits the crime. There. You may not like the answer, but quit pretending it isn't an answer.

You can electrocute them. Hang them. Shoot them. Gas them. OD them. Whatever. As long as they wind up dead.

Quantrill

 

I used to think I would even perform the killings of people. Now my hope in the legal system to catch criminals is nearly gone since they started spending so much of their budgets telling people what they can consume and sell.

Imagine goign to jail for having a drink or smoking a joint. People are.

 

Again, I already answered it on page 18 post 176.
I believe that in a child murder case, where there is no doubt of guilt, the jury should become the parent. To carry out what the girl was unable to do and carry out what the parent would have done if he was there.

The rest of your post was insulting and sarcastic and with all due respect I didn't realize you were younger than me. Maybe when you get a little older you'll understand why asking short one lined questions isn't going to provide you with worthwhile answers.

I'm done playing your game.

Bee

 

You fail to recognize the real issue. George Stinney's problem was NOT the death penalty. His problem was a dismal lack of legislation and law enforcement regarding police interrogation policy and procedure, as well as the provision of adequate public defense (to say nothing of the still very serious problem of using lay people, with no forensic experience whatsoever, to make critical life and death judgements while arriving at a verdict).

Say there was no death penalty? George Stinney could easily have spent the rest of life in prison for a crime he may not have committed.


BTW: the article does not mention any other suspects or anyone else ever confessing to the crime. How do we know Stinney did not, in fact, commit the crimes to which he confessed?

 

Where in the world did you ever come up that ridiculously erroneous idea?

Prisons DO NOT prevent murder or assault, not upon guards, other prison staff, other inmates, or even civilians on the outside in the event of an escape.

But the worst problem with not executing incorrigible convicts is that they undermine the rehabilitation of those inmates who are salvageable. Do you have any idea how many young, first-time offenders have been incarcerated alongside convicts serving extended sentences, who then have had to commit an atrocious act of violence either in self-defense from incorrigibles or as initiation into an incorrigible prison gang in order to obtain protection, only to then have tacked on another 20 to 40 years incarceration atop what was initially a five year sentence for aggravated assault?

Your gross ignorance and naivete on the subject at hand is shocking.

 

NO, the United States is NOT an advanced nation.

The United States is in the same category as nations like Russia, Communist China, Iraq, Iran, and South Africa to name but a few. These nations are barbaric and monstrous - heathen nations with no respect for human life.

 

has the right idea with a firing squad. There should be a specific tax for people who oppose the death penalty. YOU (i.e. those who are against the death penalty) pay for the derelict to spend a lifetime in jail. I should get a tax break and retroactively for all of my working years. I support the concept of spending $2 (i.e. four shooters and one blank using 5.56 mm rounds) and mandatory DNA testing for confirmation of the alleged crime (if applicable). The sum total of DNA testing, bullets and labor (i.e. current police or military can used for assassination) is FAR LESS than even one year in a federal or state prison in the USA.

 

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.

Is this better evidence for you? I can provide as much as you like.

 

It's so lovely to see a devout son of God display the Fruits of the Spirit.
Again, it's "you're", and I think you meant "infatuated".
If English overwhelms you, I don't think I'll leave criminal justice in your hands. Or theology.

 

So you are in favor of jetissoning the mandatory appeals to prevent the mistakes we know the system is prone to? That is where the money goes, and why life imprisonment is a cheaper solution.

 

Criminologists' Views on Deterrence and the Death Penalty

A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”

The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research.


Can we put the "deterrence" debate to rest and at least admit that the only thing that the dp is effective at achieving is vengeance. It has no other impact on society.

 

Fact.

Sure, but these are people that know they may be assaulted etc. The whole point is to protect the general public.

Then again the problem is not prison, the problem is putting hardened criminals with those who aren't.

Sure sure. You have refuted nothing.

 

So you dont want them to die? LOL So you concede defeat either way.

Show me the rate, if there are any, of deaths in highest security prisons. Then show how it CANT be made better.

Ok, so you agree with me point though - prisons do offer a valid alternative (even if they requirement improvement).

But now you have raised another point - the "right" of the victims(or rather those representing them) to kill the person in question. My response to this is - why do they have this right?

 

So you are saying that someone is entitled to punish someone who does injustice to them (why?) and that it needs to "fit" the crime? Why? Why is it justified if it fits the crime? THIS is my question, which you have not answered.
Why does execution become valid if it fits the crime?

 

What they do is the question, and up to now they're not doing it (preventing killing.) And since they haven't stopped it, it is highly questionable that your statement ("YES THEY CAN") has a shred of validity.

LOL Yes you did. You said punishment is justified where it is "equally as bad" as the crime. That is an eye for an eye and vengeance. Do you really think that principle would work in real life? By this logic, I suppose you very much liked the punishment proposed in Iran where a girl, whose ex-boyfriend threw acid in her face, was allowed to throw acid into his? According to you this is a just punishment.

No I said security in prisons can be improved, and consequently prisons stand as entirely VALID alternative to execution. You have yet to refute this.

There is a huge frequency of mishaps within the set up of lethal injection procedures. I will find the survey relating this fact.

Which would cut out most executions, but ok point taken.

 

Where is your proof of this last claim? Unable to "stop them"? Stop them doing what? Killing more people. Most murders are premeditated.

...wtf?...

Live and let live. Killing the killer will only make you as bad as he.

Maybe you would but I wouldnt. I dont consider this a laughing matter. You have yet to give ANY justification as to why the criminal should die.

 

But you have yet to actually state, ethically, why killing is justified in and of itself.

Well if you're still interested, my question is above. Also I intended NO sarcasm or insult and I would care for you to point out such lines. This isnt a laughing matter.

 

Oh yes, lovely dear.

Naw, it doesnt bother me at all.

Shame, your arguments don't hold up to one so inferior in the 'English'. But Im sure your English is good.

Quantrill

 

Why do you keep asking the same question when its been answered?

Because your 19?

No, your question always changes as soon as its answered. Grow up son. Your not that deep.

Quantrill