Executions largely confined to the southern US

[Cancel3]

I think most proponents of the death penalty view it more as an act of justice than a deterrent to crime. Any so-called deterrent is more of a bonus.

Though I would argue that in Singapore crime is heavily deterred due to their harsh sentences for a variety of criminal acts. However that's just assumption on my part.

I think you argument is flawed though because you could probably say the same thing for life sentences. There is no study to show it deters crime, therefore we should reduce life sentences?

Not at all, but you bring up a good point.

I don't think that its a matter of saying either it deters crime or you do away with it. Its a matter of justifying killing another human being.

I doubt anyone in their right mind would say we should neither incarcerate nor execute convicted criminals. I think the issue is whether we should execute OR incarcerate. And until we can be 1005 sure of guilt, I think incarceration is the way to go.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

No problem brother.

Belief in God does not require the recognition of truth, or justice, or even what is "godly." It only requires belief in doctrine .. thus quite often, believers in "God" are less godly, or god-like than those who do not believe in doctrine.

Thus, there is no mystery why the south, which has such an ungodly history, is also the most religious.

Or, in more simpler terms:

1. People believe in god to explain the things that they do not understand.
2. Many in the south don't understand a LOT of things.
3. Therefore, the south believes more heavily in god.

 

[KingCondanomation]

The death penalty is very rarely applied anyway, would we really see a variance on crime rates based on how little it is used?

Often times we only think of the death penalty as it applies to deterring murder in the free world, but what about deterring murders in prison? Saying that you will lock them up for life does not stop them interacting with other prison inmates or prison guards and having chances to kill them.
By killing a murderer in prison, you reduce the chance of prison guards getting killed or assaulted, going on the belief that a murderer is a prisoner that is more likely to kill than say a drug user, white collar crime guy or thief.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-19-oklahomaprison_N.htm?csp=34

Prison guards lives matter too, they have families, get rid of scum and help deter crime against them.

 

[blackascoal]

I think most proponents of the death penalty view it more as an act of justice than a deterrent to crime. Any so-called deterrent is more of a bonus.

Though I would argue that in Singapore crime is heavily deterred due to their harsh sentences for a variety of criminal acts. However that's just assumption on my part.

I think you argument is flawed though because you could probably say the same thing for life sentences. There is no study to show it deters crime, therefore we should reduce life sentences?

I beg to differ good brother.

Justice has little to do with it and retribution and revenge have everything to do with it.

If justice was truly the goal, wouldn't we ensure justice is being served?

This is more about fear, televison, fear, revenge, fear, stereotypes, fear, apathy, and FEAR than justice.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Not at all, but you bring up a good point.

I don't think that its a matter of saying either it deters crime or you do away with it. Its a matter of justifying killing another human being.

I doubt anyone in their right mind would say we should neither incarcerate nor execute convicted criminals. I think the issue is whether we should execute OR incarcerate. And until we can be 1005 sure of guilt, I think incarceration is the way to go.

With today's advances in DNA and other technology, we can be more certain than we ever have been in convicting. Remember that the mistakes of using the death penalty were found by current technology, the same technology that can ensure we don't have mistakes in the future.

 

[blackascoal]

Or, in more simpler terms:

1. People believe in god to explain the things that they do not understand.
2. Many in the south don't understand a LOT of things.
3. Therefore, the south believes more heavily in god.

Wish I had said that.

"Faith" .. no matter what semantics one uses, is a belief in something you do not know to be true. Facts do not require faith.

 

[KingCondanomation]

I beg to differ good brother.

Justice has little to do with it and retribution and revenge have everything to do with it.

If justice was truly the goal, wouldn't we ensure justice is being served?

This is more about fear, televison, fear, revenge, fear, stereotypes, fear, apathy, and FEAR than justice.

If you send a convicted serial murderer to prison for life, should you not fear the possibility of him ever getting out?
People should fear Charles Manson, if there was a death penalty when he was sentenced, then he would be dead and done with, instead he got life and has helped build a cult of many sick followers, many of whom are outside of prison.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Not at all, but you bring up a good point.
Its a matter of justifying killing another human being.

....

I think the issue is whether we should execute OR incarcerate.

Right, which is what should have been your original argument. You are approaching this more from a moral standpoint, rather than a fiscal or practical one which seemed like the essence of your previous post.

Just keeping you on your toes.

 

[Cancel3]

With today's advances in DNA and other technology, we can be more certain than we ever have been in convicting. Remember that the mistakes of using the death penalty were found by current technology, the same technology that can ensure we don't have mistakes in the future.

Yes, there are advances in forensics. And yet there are still mistakes.


If it is wrong to kill someone, then it is wrong to kill someone. With the exception of self-defense, I cannot see there being any justification in murder.

 

[Cancel3]

Right, which is what should have been your original argument. You are approaching this more from a moral standpoint, rather than a fiscal or practical one which seemed like the essence of your previous post.

Just keeping you on your toes.

I'm old and my toes hurt!

 

[KingCondanomation]

Yes, there are advances in forensics. And yet there are still mistakes.


If it is wrong to kill someone, then it is wrong to kill someone. With the exception of self-defense, I cannot see there being any justification in murder.

What about my prison guard argument? Sending them to jail for life doesn't stop them killing other inmates, prison guards or in some cases, ordering hits from jail.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I beg to differ good brother.

Justice has little to do with it and retribution and revenge have everything to do with it.

If justice was truly the goal, wouldn't we ensure justice is being served?

This is more about fear, televison, fear, revenge, fear, stereotypes, fear, apathy, and FEAR than justice.

i was speaking from the death penalties advocate's perspective, and evaluating what they BELIEVE to be the best case for the death penalty. I wasn't suggesting that justice was actually being practiced.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Absolutely.

South Korea is more civilized than the US, however, being that it hasn't executed anyone in more than 10 years.

And about victims, if someone in my family was murdered, there is nothing less that I would want than for conservatives to spit on their grave by executing someone because of it. The death penalty in the modern world is wholly and completely unnecessary. You guys like to use victims as human shields for your barbaric beliefs and the hard-ons you get from the death penalty. So when a victim agrees with the death penalty you shout it from the roof tops, but when they don't you tell them to shut the fuck up.

Which is more barbaric... putting someone to death or putting someone in a cage for life with no hope of getting out? I would say the latter is the harsher punishment.

That said, the death penalty should only be applied when certainty exists. All those on death row prior to the late 90's should have their sentences commuted to life without parole. There was too much discrimination in the past and too many that have been found innocent since their incarceration.

But people like Bundy, McVeigh, Manson, Dahmer, Watermark etc... should be put down.

 

[blackascoal]

What about my prison guard argument? Sending them to jail for life doesn't stop them killing other inmates, prison guards or in some cases, ordering hits from jail.

DNA evidence has proven most conclusive and reliable as evidence .. but courts and prosecutors fight against introduction of DNA evidence .. not because it isn't reliable, they fight against it because it is. Tends to get in the way of highly valued arrest and conviction rates and scores.

Prison guards, as should other inmates be protected, but much of what is needed to protect them is a revamping of our prison systems, which now operate for-profit.

 

[Cancel3]

What about my prison guard argument? Sending them to jail for life doesn't stop them killing other inmates, prison guards or in some cases, ordering hits from jail.

Nor does executing someone prevent them from becoming a martyr and being used as a symbol to get people (in and out of prison) to kill people.

And I have not seen anything that shows capital punishment reducing prison guard murders. The only stats I found talked about individual deaths. And not whether the inmate in question was in for a capital offense.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

The death penalty is my most hardest issue. As a matter of practicality I buy into all the arguments that it's more expensive to execute than to keep them alive. I also am aware that we are executing innocent people. At the same time it's hard for me to get worked up over a child rapist/murderer being put down.

I'm not sure how I would feel if the death penalty were made cheaper and 100% foolproof, but I would likely be much less against/possibly in favor of it.

Then there is the issue of whether or not the state should have the right to be able to kill it's citizens. If I don't trust the government to take my taxes, it does seem ironic that I would invest the state with such a great power. And what is stopping the state in the future to expanding the death penalty for other crimes such as robbery/drug possession?

 

[blackascoal]

i was speaking from the death penalties advocate's perspective, and evaluating what they BELIEVE to be the best case for the death penalty. I wasn't suggesting that justice was actually being practiced.

My bad, thank you.

Then my comment should be directed to those who hold that opinion.

 

[Cancel3]

Which is more barbaric... putting someone to death or putting someone in a cage for life with no hope of getting out? I would say the latter is the harsher punishment.

That said, the death penalty should only be applied when certainty exists. All those on death row prior to the late 90's should have their sentences commuted to life without parole. There was too much discrimination in the past and too many that have been found innocent since their incarceration.

But people like Bundy, McVeigh, Manson, Dahmer, Watermark etc... should be put down.

Before they executed Bundy he had cost the state over $5 million.

Even if he had lived a long time, he probably would have cost less than $1 million to incarcerate. I can think of a lot of uses for $4 million. All of them better than revenge.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Nor does executing someone prevent them from becoming a martyr and being used as a symbol to get people (in and out of prison) to kill people.

No, but it's less likely right? There are plenty of morons like Manson but most doing what he did would have been put to death, by allowing him to live, there are some who see him as having beat the system and a more powerful attraction.

And I have not seen anything that shows capital punishment reducing prison guard murders. The only stats I found talked about individual deaths. And not whether the inmate in question was in for a capital offense.

You wouldn't find stats on that, it's too small a number but there is no question that having a murderer in prison, though limiting their contact with the outside world, they would still have contact with other inmates and prison guards.
Put simply, dead murderers do not kill other prisoners or prison guards.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Before they executed Bundy he had cost the state over $5 million.

Even if he had lived a long time, he probably would have cost less than $1 million to incarcerate. I can think of a lot of uses for $4 million. All of them better than revenge.

I don't think you could have picked a worse example.
Bundy escaped from prison to kill 2 young girls.
If you kill murderers they cannot escape.

There is no good reason why it should cost so much to execute a murderer, most of that is lefty people who want to interfere and drag out the process and drive up the cost just so they can use it as an argument against the DP.