Death Penalty

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by GlobalHumanism, Aug 2, 2011.

?

Should the Death Penalty be Abolished?

Poll closed Nov 10, 2011.
  1. Yes. It is Horrible, Unjust and Barbaric

    65 vote(s)
    48.9%
  2. No. The Murders that are Executed do not deserve life.

    68 vote(s)
    51.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dudleysharp

    dudleysharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No Shiva the links I provided detailed increased violence in solitary confinement. You are changing your tune here, because you have, again, been found making statements that are false, because you don't fact check.

    The isolation being spoken of is solitary confinement, just as you have been explaining it to all of us.

    You, now, have to deflect the reality from your ficition because everything you have said has been proven false.

    As usual.

    Living murderers can and do harm again.

    Exeuted murderers do not.
     
  2. dudleysharp

    dudleysharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Folks are really trying to fact check and present facts and rational arguements, here, not just what they may have overheard at the coffee shop.

    Fact checking and rational arguments.
     
  3. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,114
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Not sure if what you cited is moral support or sanctification.
    When I brought up that God being the ultimate judge, I wasn't looking for judgement here on earth, but that is not the point I am trying to make.
    What I am questioning is the following.
    When a family lost, i.e., a daughter to murder, the murderer is caught, tried and sentenced to death, more often than not, the family seeks closure, peace.
    But, what does putting the perpetrator to death really do?
    Will the anger and sadness go away? Will the loved one come back? Will the memories of a violent death go away?
    Won't one achieve more peace through forgiveness, doesn't closure come from within, not from vengeance?
    Please note, I am on the fence on this issue, and from where I stand, forgiving others as I wish to be forgiven is key, regardless of sin/trespass.
     
  4. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would state uncategorically that no one presents a greater threat to society than a serial killer. While some mass murderes do kill more people in a single instance of violence it is the repeated willingness to commit premeditated murder over time that threatens society the most.

    We can look at a list on Wikipedia of the known serial killers and we see that some are responsible for 5, 10 and even 45 or more premeditated murders. Many have been executed and some have escaped the executioner such as Gary Ridgeway who has been convicted of 49 murders in Washington.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_in_the_United_States#Unidentified_serial_killers

    We rightfully condemn the acts of serial killers because of their premeditated taking of the lives of helpless people.

    What we often fail to address is that there are others, such as Jerry Givens, who has confessed to commiting the premeditated killing of 62 people. He openly admited that he killed these people. His killed people secretly. While some knew of his acts of killing most like his wife didn't know, his family didn't know, his neighbors didn't know and the public didn't know, as he continued to kill people year after year. He has killed more helpless people that anyone on the Wikipedia list of serial killers.

    He has never been charged with murder and, in fact, the government paid him to kill people that were being held helpless by the government.

    http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/2008/01/profile-of-an-e.html

    This is not to personally condemn Jerry Givens but instead to point out that our government fundamentally employs individuals to be serial killers. It is the condemnation of the death penalty that turns good Americans into serial killers of individuals that are being held helpless by the State. Jerry Givens story needs to be read by others as he was really very brave to even discuss it. Jerry Givens reached the point where being a state hired murder was too much and ended his career as the executioner for the State of Virginia in 1999.
     
  5. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,114
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    So what are the facts?
    What are the stats re prison guards and domestic violence?
    Do you think that, being exposed to violence, daily, doesn't leave a mark?
    Aren't we constantly being changed through our circumstances?
     
  6. dudleysharp

    dudleysharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really?

    Shiva, did you fact check that?

    Now, here are just some escapes by death row inmates - three links below.

    My educated guess is that you haven't fact checked murderers on death row murdering, again.

    Have you considered that living murderers can and do harm and murder, again, but that executed murderers do not?

    Rash of Violence Disrupts San Quentin's Death Row
    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/22/us/rash-of-violence-disrupts-san-quentin-s-death-row.html

    Escape from death row - the Briley Brothers
    http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/?p=3828

    Death Row inmates Escapes during transportation
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9922969...ts/t/strenuous-security-escapee-returns-jail/
     
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.womenandpolicing.org/violenceFS.asp

    Once again we have an argument against an established fact. I'm not the one that needs to spend time actually doing research as every argument I've put forward is supported by facts.

    As I noted I haven't seen a study of domestic violence related to DOC staff but I have certainly read news stories related to it. Without an actual study to refer to I would call this anecdotal evidence but I believe it is more common related to DOC staff because they have similarities with police officers.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015742062_apwaprisonguarddomesticviolence.html
     
  8. dudleysharp

    dudleysharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly.

    Shiva, what are the facts. That has always been difficult for you.

    For you, it's just what you overheard. I mean, that nice and all, but facts matter and are more useful in productive discussion. I think most of us are aware of that.

    Why don't you fact check what you overheard and present those facts, here, only to show us and yourself that you care about facts.

    Try it.
     
  9. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pay attention, you're about to learn something --

    Missouri is known as the "Show Me State" because of a speech given by Missouri Congressman Willard Vandiver in 1899, when he said - "I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me."

    As I said earlier --
    Climb off of your soapbox, drop the holier-than-thou rhetoric, quit making excuses, quit obfuscating, and SHOW ME!

    BTW - I noticed that you referenced the Emmitt Till murder. You are to be congratulated - instead of a trial that happened in the 1940's, you're now referencing incidents that happened in the 1950's. We're moving forward through American history, and this is good! I was afraid that your next example of capital punishment abuse was going to be the Salem witch trials! So, let's move on, skip Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and try to find examples a little more current. Can you do that, please?
     
  10. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,114
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Actually, you haven't presented any facts to the contrary. So yours are just opinions as well. Its why I asked if being exposed to violence doesn't leave a mark. How could it not? How can it possibly NOT change you?
     
  11. dudleysharp

    dudleysharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fact checking and rational arguments.

    Keep it up. Way to go!

    I never argued or disagreed with you on this. I wouldn't have and did not.

    Again, you simply made something up that never occurred. You need to work on not doing that, anymore.

    I already knew the facts on this topic.

    I just wanted to see if you cared enough to fact check something.

    Now, fact check murders commited by those in solitary confinement.

    They are there. I found a recent one, right after reading your false claims, way back in this thread.

    It was a big deal and made the national news.

    See if you can find it and others.

    Then present them to the group, here.
     
  12. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,114
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    "Only" 40%? I would have guessed it to be higher.
    What's more suprising,
    So, 19%, because ...?
    Would make for an interesting new thread to investigate this more thoroughly.
     
  13. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have you ever read Immanuel Kant's "Metaphysics of Morals" published in 1797?

    Kant explains the flaws in your reasoning far better than I possibly could.

    Click here.
     
  14. dudleysharp

    dudleysharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know. I wasn't disagreeing with her. I gave no opinion on the topic. I knew what she was saying was factually true.

    I just wanted to see if she would fact check a claim, for once. She did and I am proud of her.

    I knew her fact was correct, but her statement was only based on what she had heard, not what she had researched.

    It has been very difficult dealing with her, because she makes claim after claim with no facts and her reasoning has no foundation except blind opinion, to the exclusion of reason.

    Read the thread.
     
  15. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,114
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    So you are merely arguing.
     
  16. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,114
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Read it, years ago.
    One opinion against another, so I guess the most logical conclusion should be that its a very personal matter.
    Regardless of stats, opinions, studies and findings, we have to deal with it, and make the decision that is right for us.
     
  17. dudleysharp

    dudleysharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No please read what I say as opposed to what you imagine.

    My entire pupsoe was to get her to fact chekc, as was very clear and specific in the post you responded to.

    You misread it as if I had a different opinion and challenged me as if I didn't state my opinion (with supportive facts).

    You imagined all that.

    I just wanted to see if Shiva would, finally, fact check something.

    Happily, she responded positively, fact checked and presented the material.

    That was the entire point. I never argued.
     
  18. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's review this list of links.

    This article addresses "San Quentin's age and lack of a modern security system." It does not establish that a modern facility cannot and does not provide security for the DOC personnel and, in fact, the California DOC has recommended that these violent individuals be moved to a modern facility that does protect the staff. It does not condemn holding violent prisioners in solitary but instead condemns holding them in facilities that do not provide the protection for the DOC staff. Fix the facilities and the problem is solved.

    The proposition that a person can be held in solitary confinment so that they do not present a threat to other prisoners, DOC staff and the public remains valid so long as it's done using modern facilities.

    The Briley Brothers were not confined in solitary when they escaped. Their escape reflected a failure in training of the DOC staff which literally allowed them to walk out of the prison freely.

    The proposition that a person can be held in solitary confinment so that they do not present a threat to other prisoners, DOC staff and the public remains valid which also assumes that the staff is properly trained.

    Charles Victor Thompson did not escape from a maximum security prison where he was being held in solitary confinement. He escaped from the Harris County Jail.

    The proposition that a person can be held in solitary confinment so that they do not present a threat to other prisoners, DOC staff and the public remains valid.

    We still do not have a single example of a prisoner being held in solitary confinement in a modern maximum security prison ever escaping and causing any harm to others.

    Even the case of San Quentin where DOC officers are being assaulted is irrelevant because the story itself establishes that San Quentin does not provide modern facilities for the incarceration of violent individuals in solitary confinement. A failure to provide the facilities and/or the failure to properly train the DOC staff are really invalid arguments. Provide the proper facilities and train the staff. It's that simple.
     
  19. GlobalHumanism

    GlobalHumanism New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can :ignore: all you want

    "Show Me"

    Can you not understand the statement "There Is None"

    The trial was a sham and it was a kangaroo court. Much like your ridiculous arguments of deference, there is a complete lack of evidence to prove anything. Yet why was he executed? Ask yourself

    The absence of evidence IS actually evidence of absence.

    To your later "point", which again tirelessly refers to the need for contemporary cases, I once again make note of its IRRELEVANCY. I will not move toward contemporary cases until you address the history of death penalty cases being used as forum of channeled societal disdain. In the two cases I listed, It was toward blacks. Contemporary wise, it could be cases of Child Murder. The point being, socio-emotional jingoism is entangled with such rulings, which in turn CLOUDS judgement in jury decisions. Hence, we have murders of Innocents by the State "George Stinny"

    The point of the CORRECTIONAL system is not to be a forum of revenge but means of protection for both the convicted and the wider populace. The death penalty is a vestige of barbarism that can and has resulted in the death of an innocent child.

    I will not move from this topic until you can definitively rectify the murder of this child with "jurisprudence" of the death penalty.
     
  20. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,114
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Lol, my mistake.

    May I stipulate that, no matter how many facts are presented, we will never come to an agreement?
     
  21. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me see if I understand - you can't document any evidence that George may have been innocent, can't link to any trial transcripts, post any judicial reviews of the case, nothing. In short, you've nothing to show except a personal belief that George got railroaded, and we should abolish capital punishment as a result.

    In your opinion, two little white girls were murdered, and the populace of Alcolu, South Carolina randomly decided that George Stinney should die for this. "Justice be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed, let's kill a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)!"

    What's next - outlawing abortions because some women died from perforated uteruses back in the 1800's?
     
  22. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A good link worth reading but as it notes:

    Realizing that Kant published his work in 1797 we must also place the princples in the context of time. If we were to apply all historical perspectives then we could establish justification for the murdering of "witches" during the Salem Witch Trials. More importantly I would address this statement which is early in the text:

    This is correct. A society and state must have laws to protect society from those that have demonstrated a disregard for the Rights of the People. This is clearly established by the United States Declaration of Independence where the primary role of government is to protect the unalienable Rights of the People.

    This is where Kant makes a leap from the necessity of society and the state to have laws that protect the People and the Government into a completely unrelated proposition that "punishment" is necessary and required for the protection of people and the state. "Punishment" is not required to protect either the people or the state as incarceration provides for that protection. It is a failure of logic to imply that which is not required is necessary to support that which is required.

    BTW Kant also establishes that the state, or more specifically the leader of a state, can commit criminal acts with impunity and we would certainly disagree with that today. This appears to be founded in the belief of the "Divine Rights of Kings" which was rejected by the Founding Fathers. The government can commit crimes and those responsible should be prosecuted for it.

    It is a very dated opinion that is not valid today as it fails to provide logical arguments for the propositions it puts forward. The very foundation of the argument is flawed.
     
    Viv and (deleted member) like this.
  23. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't believe that is the proposition being presented. Instead four propositions do exist.

    1) George was not convicted of murder beyond any doubt but instead beyond a reasonable doubt. In short the attorney(s) for the prosecution presented evidence that implied that George committed the murders which, in the eyes of the jury, was not successfully rebutted by the defense attorney(s). It doesn't establish that George was guilty but intead that the prosecution provided better arguments and/or that the jury might have been prejudicial on the side of the prosecution.

    2) Where DNA evidence exists which can establish that someone other than the convicted person committed the crime we've seen over 140 death penalty cases overturned. In all of these cases the person was convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the truth is the jury was wrong. Lacking actual evidence that someone else committed the crime, such as DNA evidence, does not establish that a convicted person actually committed the crime. All that is established is that the person was convicted but that is all and we know have ample evidence that juries make mistakes.

    3) We know that innocent people have been convicted of capital crimes and have been executed by our government. These cases establish that our government is literally committing the premeditated killing (murder) of innocent People.

    4) The death penalty is not required to prevent an individual from committing future crimes so it is remains unnecessary. It is a violation of the unalienable Right to Life that cannot be supported based upon pragmatic considerations.
     
  24. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly. Most people believe that the exact same proposition you've put forth happened in the Casey Anthony trial. The pendulum swings both ways.

    Agreed, juries do make mistakes -- the aforementioned Casey Anthony trial and - depending upon your viewpoint - the Simpson trial, are proof of that. But, DNA testing is a step forward to lessening the possibility that a mistake may be made that leads to the death of an innocent person.

    Murder is the illegal killing of another human. Since the state writes the laws, the state cannot commit murder. Depending upon who a soldier shoots, it can be classified as combat, or else murder - there is a huge legal difference.

    "Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary...our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall." - John Stuart Mill
     
  25. GlobalHumanism

    GlobalHumanism New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    You don't respond to my points yet I respond to yours.

    Consider yourself irrelevant.

    :bored: next
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page