The death penalty

[thenexttodie]

In prison you are not able to hurt and kill their victims or their victims family.

Of course you can. Let's say their is a prison in the US who murdered a women and is on death row. He ends up being on TV interviewed by someone and when asked about the crime he was convicted he lies and says "No no no. I didn't kill this girl. I just meet her for one night, she slept around with a lot of guys. That's the kind of girl she was so who's to say I killed her?"

That would hurt anyone who heard that their daughters murderer was saying that about their little girl.

It is very possible for a prisoner to have someone murdered outside of prison. They have witnesses killed, they have fellow gang members killed. Ex-wives. All kinds of shit. It happens all the time.

 

[Nesslig20]

In prison you are not able to hurt and kill their victims or their victims family.

Of course you can. Let's say their is a prison in the US who murdered a women and is on death row. He ends up being on TV interviewed by someone and when asked about the crime he was convicted he lies and says "No no no. I didn't kill this girl. I just meet her for one night, she slept around with a lot of guys. That's the kind of girl she was so who's to say I killed her?"

That would hurt anyone who heard that their daughters murderer was saying that about their little girl.

Most batshit reason so far.
1. Sure, you can say insulting stuff. If I called your mom a bitch, does that mean I need to be executed since I "hurt" you. No it doesn't.
The fact that murderers can insult you is no reason to execute them.
2. If the prisoner says insulting stuff then it is put to the interviewers responsibility wether it gets broadcasted or not.
3. The dead sentence doesn't solve this since those on death row or during trial can be interviewed as well.

It is very possible for a prisoner to have someone murdered outside of prison. They have witnesses killed, they have fellow gang members killed. Ex-wives. All kinds of shit. It happens all the time.

And how does the death sentence solve this? It doesn't because the only time when a murderer wants witnesses killed is BEFORE a sentence is established like the death penalty. In fact is the murderer is faced with the possibility to get the death sentence that is more motivation to hire someone to kill witnesses right.

Nesslig20, let me again try make this clear, I agree with you, the death penalty in US is not working. OK. We both agree on that. So it's not really even neccesary for you to respond to me with posts about Amnesty USA or to give me statics which show that the death penalty is not working because I already agree with you.

...

Death is an obvious deterrent. Avoiding death is major motivational factor in our everyday lives. It's a fact which is impossible to ignore.

Obviously not according to statistics. Otherwise the statistics would show something else instead. Yes, death is an obvious deterrent. Not the death penalty since:
"The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse." http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1b.htm

You've yet to demonstrate that the death penalty is a deterrent.

A certain and immediate death is of course more of a deterrent than more distant and less likely death. The promise of a distant and less likely deaths is not much of a deterrent. We launched a major ad campaign against smoking and we sued the tobacco companies and it was all on TV and we put pictures of human bodies aflected with various forms of cancer on the packs of cigarettes and now everyone one knows that, "If you smoke now, you might get cancer.......later" Millions and millions and millions of people in western world still smoke. 40,000,000 in the US alone. Almost everyone I know smokes.

That's funny, almost nobody I know smokes and those that do are over 50 years old. It seems that some people are unable to see the consequences of their actions that are not immediately obvious like smoking increases the likely hood to get cancer later on or committing murder increases the likely hood to get the death sentence.

So why is the death penalty not working in the US? Let me quote myself:

"It's really so unlikely one would ever actually be put to death for commiting a capital crime in the US, one could hardly expect it deterrent. There's about 16,000 murders a year the US and we have less than 3000 people on death row. The length of time an inmate spends on death row before being executed is 15 years, and even then, he still has a chance of having dying a natural death or having his sentence reduced. Meanwhile 240,000 people will be murdered. Men, Women and Childeren including some 6700 infants. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=infant-homicide.
Take a minute to let these numbers sink in. Google it.

Assuming these numbers are valid, that still doesn't demonstrate that the death penalty can work. All you've done is make excuses for why it doesn't work, which indicates that you've nothing to show that it even can work.

Their should be no mercy. No plea bargains. No giving a murderer 10, 20, or 30 years for his lawyer to find a way to have his sentenced reduced. No rehab for child rapists. Kill them in a horrific manner, the day of their conviction. Crush them. Pour gasoline on them and burn them to death. Show people what their burned lungs will look like if they ever commit a murder.

I will repeat what I said:
"How can the death penalty be applied effectively? You've asserted that if we would increase death sentences or if we apply it effectively then it works, yet you have dick to back that up."

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Their should be no mercy. No plea bargains. No giving a murderer 10, 20, or 30 years for his lawyer to find a way to have his sentenced reduced. No rehab for child rapists. Kill them in a horrific manner, the day of their conviction. Crush them. Pour gasoline on them and burn them to death. Show people what their burned lungs will look like if they ever commit a murder.

This is exactly the type of comment I expect to see from a religious extremist.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetngs,

thenexttodie, you're completely missing the point of a deterrent.

Murders are committed under two conditions - hot- and cold-blood.

Hot-blooded murder occurs when a person completely loses it - the proverbial "red mist comes down", they stab someone a hundred times before the "red mist" lifts, they see the body, the blood, and the bloody knife, and think, "What have I done!!??"

During the time when they were lost in the "red mist", the idea of their facing the death penalty - or any other punishment - never occurred to them.

In cold-blooded murder, the would-be murderer plans the crime with the intention - and belief - that (s)he won't be suspected, never mind caught. As far as anyone is concerned, the victim's death was suicide or an accident.

For the cold-blooded murderer, the death penalty is an incentive to ensure they plan, and execute the murder without getting caught.

In both cases, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

Actually punishing someone with the death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Nesslig20]

Their should be no mercy. No plea bargains. No giving a murderer 10, 20, or 30 years for his lawyer to find a way to have his sentenced reduced. No rehab for child rapists. Kill them in a horrific manner, the day of their conviction. Crush them. Pour gasoline on them and burn them to death. Show people what their burned lungs will look like if they ever commit a murder.

 

[thenexttodie]

Death is an obvious deterrent. Avoiding death is major motivational factor in our everyday lives. It's a fact which is impossible to ignore.

Obviously not according to statistics.

So...where are you from?

 

[Steelmage99]

Death is an obvious deterrent. Avoiding death is major motivational factor in our everyday lives. It's a fact which is impossible to ignore.

Obviously not according to statistics.

So...where are you from?

Why does it matter?

You keep saying that the death penalty is a major deterrent. Reality disagrees with you.
We do not see any indication that the death penalty and the threat of death do what you say.

States and countries with the death penalty do not have lower crime rates compared to those without.

How would you go about determining whether the death penalty is a major deterrent or not?

 

[Nesslig20]

Death is an obvious deterrent. Avoiding death is major motivational factor in our everyday lives. It's a fact which is impossible to ignore.

Obviously not according to statistics.

So...where are you from?

Quote mine: I meant the death penalty is not a deterrent according to statistics.

Full quote:


Obviously not according to statistics. Otherwise the statistics would show something else instead. Yes, death is an obvious deterrent. Not the death penalty since:
"The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse." http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/stude ... ment1b.htm

 

[thenexttodie]

You keep saying that the death penalty is a major deterrent. Reality disagrees with you.
We do not see any indication that the death penalty and the threat of death do what you say.

The whole point is that there is hardly any death at all associated with the death penalty. Your chances of (after commiting a capital crime) being caught, convicted, sentenced to death and actually being executed are very small.

As I said i It's really so unlikely one would ever actually be put to death for commiting a capital crime in the US, one could hardly expect it deterrent.

There's about 16,000 murders a year the US and we have less than 3000 people on death row. The length of time an inmate spends on death row before being executed is 15 years, and even then, he still has a chance of having dying a natural death or having his sentence reduced. Meanwhile 240,000 people will be murdered. Men, Women and Children including some 6700 infants.

There should be no mercy. No plea bargains. No giving a murderer 10, 20, or 30 years for his lawyer to find a way to have his sentenced reduced. No rehab for child rapists. Kill them in a horrific manner, the day of their conviction. Crush them. Pour gasoline on them and burn them to death. Immediately after conviction. [/i]

(Ironically, some poor guy just got his head crushed by a car right outside my work today. But anyway..)

Everyone knows doing so, would deter crime. There no point in even arguing about it. Everybody jaywalks. If we were to be burned alive for doing I'd bet fish for fickle that you and everyone else would stop doing it.

It's the reason why when the Black Panthers started carrying shotguns, people stopped beating them up. The threat of an painful, imminent death by shot gun, was a deterrent.

 

[Visaki]

There should be no mercy. No plea bargains. No giving a murderer 10, 20, or 30 years for his lawyer to find a way to have his sentenced reduced. No rehab for child rapists. Kill them in a horrific manner, the day of their conviction. Crush them. Pour gasoline on them and burn them to death. Immediately after conviction. [/i]

You mean something like the following (WARNING! Grose image)?

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

As I said, you want to take justice back to the 18th century. Or to parts of Syria and Iraq controlled by ISIS. Most of us, luckily, don't.

Everyone knows doing so, would deter crime. There no point in even arguing about it. Everybody jaywalks. If we were to be burned alive for doing I'd bet fish for fickle that you and everyone else would stop doing it.

If I killed every christian I could with the goverment help it would be something of a deterrent agaist being christian. But it wouldn't be just, and as pointed out murdering a person is more often than not an unreasonable thing to do, much like being a christian, either because it's impulse, or faith in christianitys case, driven or a fallacious cost-benefit analysis shows that being cought is a very small chance. There would still be people killing other people, and there still are christians.

But I have to say that if I was pro-death penalty I'd still be agaist the current US system. It's expensive, it's uncertain, it's slow and , all in all, it's a debacle.

 

[thenexttodie]

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

Oh no. A picture of a dead person. I am scarred for life now.

As I said, you want to take justice back to the 18th century. Or to parts of Syria and Iraq controlled by ISIS. Most of us, luckily, don't.

Murderers, and people who commit violent crimes, rape, child molestation, being executed painfully, is OK.

quote="thenexttodie"]Everyone knows doing so, would deter crime. There no point in even arguing about it. Everybody jaywalks. If we were to be burned alive for doing I'd bet fish for fickle that you and everyone else would stop doing it. [/quote]

If I killed every christian I could with the goverment help it would be something of a deterrent agaist being christian. But it wouldn't be just, and as pointed out murdering a person is more often than not an unreasonable thing to do, much like being a christian, either because it's impulse, or faith in christianitys case, driven or a fallacious cost-benefit analysis shows that being cought is a very small chance. There would still be people killing other people, and there still are christians.

So, you agree with me but you still think it's wrong. How many innocent lives must be destroyed before you get off your moral high-horse?

But I have to say that if I was pro-death penalty I'd still be agaist the current US system. It's expensive, it's uncertain, it's slow and , all in all, it's a debacle.

Obviously I would support a major change in our justice system as well.

 

[Visaki]

Oh no. A picture of a dead person. I am scarred for life now.

That is what your brand of justice would look like. Most people in the civilized countries don't think justice should, or even can, look like that.

The warning was there because... well because it's good manners in the net for pics like that.

Murderers, and people who commit violent crimes, rape, child molestation, being executed painfully, is OK.

Just out of curiosity; where would you draw the line? In the World now death penalties are given by states not only for murder but also terrorism, adultery, sodomy, apostasy, blasphemy, sorcery, drug trafficking, economic crimes and corruption, robbery, treason and various crimes and acts against national security and against the state. I know you specified murder, violent crimes (whatever that means), rape (definition of which varies a great deal), child molestation (I think parents who don't vaccinate their children molest them), but are those the only ones or would, for example, support the death penalty for drug traffickers and sorcerers?

Also when the ISIS agrees with you, you might want to rethink your position.

So, you agree with me but you still think it's wrong. How many innocent lives must be destroyed before you get off your moral high-horse?

I agree that executing people for jaywalking would be a deterrent, and say that using the death penalty against jaywalkers wouldn't be just because in a just system the punishment would fit the crime. But your analogy fails since there are major differences between jaywalking and murder and you have been shown evidence that the same death penalty which would be a deterrent against jaywalking isn't much, or at all, a deterrent against murder. This isn't my moral high horse (mainly because I'm not riding a moral argument horse against death penalty), this is your unwillingness to accept evidence.

Why not make the death penalty the only penalty in the book and execute everyone who breaks the law in any way? After all the deterrent would cause the crime rate to plummet, right?

Obviously I would support a major change in our justice system as well.

Obviously we wouldn't support the same kind of change.

 

[Laurens]

The death penalty seems to me to be more about a desire revenge than punishment. It doesn't really punish someone to be dead because there is no longer a 'them' to be subject to any kind of retribution. It has been shown that it is not a successful deterrent also. At best you can say it removes the need for the state to support someone that is essentially a drain on resources.

Personally I think that the potential for wrongful conviction outweighs any arguement in favour of the dealth penalty. I do not believe the state has any right to put its citizens at risk of being executed wrongfully, no matter how small that risk may be.

 

[thenexttodie]

Murderers, and people who commit violent crimes, rape, child molestation, being executed painfully, is OK.

Just out of curiosity; where would you draw the line?

Murderers, and people who commit violent crimes(certain violent crimes), rapists and anyone who wants to rape or sexually exploit a child.

So, you agree with me but you still think it's wrong. How many innocent lives must be destroyed before you get off your moral high-horse?

I agree that executing people for jaywalking would be a deterrent,

Ok.

and say that using the death penalty against jaywalkers wouldn't be just because in a just system the punishment would fit the crime. But your analogy fails since there are major differences between jaywalking and murder and you have been shown evidence that the same death penalty which would be a deterrent against jaywalking isn't much, or at all, a deterrent against murder. This isn't my moral high horse (mainly because I'm not riding a moral argument horse against death penalty), this is your unwillingness to accept evidence.Why not make the death penalty the only penalty in the book and execute everyone who breaks the law in any way? After all the deterrent would cause the crime rate to plummet, right?

I am not sure why you wrote this. Maybe you can try post something which is actually relevant to something I have said. Keep in mind that I have been constistant in pointing out that the chances of actually being executed for commiting a capital crime in a death penalty state are extremely low. A mere symbolic jester if anything. It is notbeing used as a deterrent. That is my point.

 

[thenexttodie]

Personally I think that the potential for wrongful conviction outweighs any arguement in favour of the dealth penalty.

It should be virtually impossible, especially with the science and technology we have today, to wrongfully convict a person of a capital crime. A wrongful conviction could only be achieved by a conspiracy of corrupt persons. Conspiring to have an innocent person possibly put to death should be a capital crime and thus such persons would receive the penalty for murder.

I do not believe the state has any right to put its citizens at risk of being executed wrongfully, no matter how small that risk may be.

Yes, somehow I gather that this is something you personally believe.

 

[Laurens]

It should be virtually impossible, especially with the science and technology we have today, to wrongfully convict a person of a capital crime. A wrongful conviction could only be achieved by a conspiracy of corrupt persons. Conspiring to have an innocent person possibly put to death should be a capital crime and thus such persons would receive the penalty for murder.

I don't really know the statistics but even if there is say a 0.0005% (I just made that up) chance that someone might get wrongfully executed, I do not see a good enough reason to have the death penalty that would make taking that chance okay.

Yes, somehow I gather that this is something you personally believe.

That is my opinion yes. Hence why I said 'I do not believe'.

 

[thenexttodie]

It should be virtually impossible, especially with the science and technology we have today, to wrongfully convict a person of a capital crime. A wrongful conviction could only be achieved by a conspiracy of corrupt persons. Conspiring to have an innocent person possibly put to death should be a capital crime and thus such persons would receive the penalty for murder.

I don't really know the statistics but even if there is say a 0.0005% (I just made that up) chance that someone might get wrongfully executed, I do not see a good enough reason to have the death penalty that would make taking that chance okay.

Yes, somehow I gather that this is something you personally believe.

That is my opinion yes. Hence why I said 'I do not believe'.

How do you evaluate the following situation;

A man molests a little girl. The man is sentenced to spend a certain amount of years in prison. The man does not want to die. In fact he hopes to live long enough to have a chance at molesting another little girl.

The girls life is destroyed. Years later, she goes to a doctor and tells him she is unable to live through the pain in her life caused by the sexual abuse she went through as a child and she wants to die.The doctor eventually helps her commit suicide.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I don't really know the statistics but even if there is say a 0.0005% (I just made that up) chance that someone might get wrongfully executed, I do not see a good enough reason to have the death penalty that would make taking that chance okay.

Yes, somehow I gather that this is something you personally believe.

That is my opinion yes. Hence why I said 'I do not believe'.

How do you evaluate the following situation;

A man molests a little girl. The man is sentenced to spend a certain amount of years in prison. The man does not want to die. In fact he hopes to live long enough to have a chance at molesting another little girl.

The girls life is destroyed. Years later, she goes to a doctor and tells him she is unable to live through the pain in her life caused by the sexual abuse she went through as a child and she wants to die.The doctor eventually helps her commit suicide.

Firstly, both parties need help.

Secondly, a doctor is not going to do that for psychological (depression) reasons.

You have some strange ideas of how the world works.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Visaki]

Firstly, both parties need help.

Secondly, a doctor is not going to do that for psychological (depression) reasons.

You have some strange ideas of how the world works.

Kindest regards,

James

Well actually...

Sexually abused Dutch woman given help to end her life

The Netherlands seem to have taken the position that a clean, humane death is a human right even if one wants to end ones life for psychological reasons. But that's a discussion for a whole other thread.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Firstly, both parties need help.

Secondly, a doctor is not going to do that for psychological (depression) reasons.

You have some strange ideas of how the world works.

Kindest regards,

James

Well actually...

Sexually abused Dutch woman given help to end her life

The Netherlands seem to have taken the position that a clean, humane death is a human right even if one wants to end ones life for psychological reasons. But that's a discussion for a whole other thread.

I'm quite surprised at that.

I'd have expected euthanasia to be accepted for disabled persons who don't want to wait 20+ years for a breakthrough, not for allegedly "incurable" psychological issues. It seems to me that such a decision suggests that the psychiatrist in question simply doesn't know how to help someone - ie, it's a failure on the medical professional's part.

There's even treatments for socio-paths, who are commonly thought of as being incurable.

Kindest regards,

James