The Death Penalty

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen said:

PJ_Soul said:

Is it being a deterrent even on the table anymore? It was determined that the death penalty didn't act as one years and years and years ago.

Sure we know this but it's still used by the pro side. And just building on my opinion there is no benefit from death penalty but this vengeance thing. Which is being currently debated.

Oh TB this is number 22.

Don't forget justice for the victims and their families. That's a fairly significant benefit in many people's books.

callen

PJ_Soul said:

It's not a moot point. The death penalty isn't a deterrent. That's it. It's a fact.

See!!!!!

callen

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

It's not a moot point. The death penalty isn't a deterrent. That's it. It's a fact.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Do some research other than spouting off. Even Wolf- the most eloquent and informed opponent of the DP in this thread- conceded what I just said.

If the DP is used in 0.00005 percent of homicides... exactly how can you establish as a fact that it is ineffective as a deterrent?

I'm not saying we do it... but if it was on the table for all murders and monitored trends after such a move... then we would know for certain (factually) if it was a deterrent or not.

The blood drinking killer could give two fks that he lived in the state with most executions. It's not a deterrent. My county executes more Americans than any in nation. Murders are still happening. Not a deterrent.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

It's not a moot point. The death penalty isn't a deterrent. That's it. It's a fact.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Do some research other than spouting off. Even Wolf- the most eloquent and informed opponent of the DP in this thread- conceded what I just said.

If the DP is used in 0.00005 percent of homicides... exactly how can you establish as a fact that it is ineffective as a deterrent?

I'm not saying we do it... but if it was on the table for all murders and monitored trends after such a move... then we would know for certain (factually) if it was a deterrent or not.

The blood drinking killer could give two fks that he lived in the state with most executions. It's not a deterrent. My county executes more Americans than any in nation. Murders are still happening. Not a deterrent.

This is opinion and not a fact.

I'd agree that the 'blood drinking killer' was likely goign to kill regardless; however, some would counter that there are scenarios where someone contemplating murder would hesitate given the looming consequence.

Moot either way though. Impossible to gauge.

* And you forgot 'poor poor' right before 'blood drinking killer' (kidding emoticon).

PJ_Soul

It's not an opinion that the only Western nation that still has the death penalty has the highest murder rate. That is a fact. It is not impossible to gauge.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

It's not an opinion that the only Western nation that still has the death penalty has the highest murder rate. That is a fact. It is not impossible to gauge.

The Death Penalty is responsible for the highest murder rate among western nations?

Is this what you are suggesting? It seems to be.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

It's not an opinion that the only Western nation that still has the death penalty has the highest murder rate. That is a fact. It is not impossible to gauge.

The Death Penalty is not responsible for the highest murder rate among western nations.

Is this what you are suggesting? It seems to be.

What? No, of course that's not what I'm suggesting (weird that you even thought of that). It just tells us that it doesn't act as a deterrent.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

It's not an opinion that the only Western nation that still has the death penalty has the highest murder rate. That is a fact. It is not impossible to gauge.

The Death Penalty is not responsible for the highest murder rate among western nations.

Is this what you are suggesting? It seems to be.

What? No, of course that's not what I'm suggesting (weird that you even thought of that). It just tells us that it doesn't act as a deterrent.

Well it's weird because your post is weird. It's basic premise is so badly flawed in logic that it was hard to decipher what you were trying to get at... but I see now... you're back to ignoring what was painfully detailed for you so that you could understand better. Please follow these instructions:

1. Go to previous post.

2. Do not stop at any other post.

3. Read and process the information in previous post that details why one cannot emphatically state, as a fact, that the DP acts as a deterrent or is ineffective as one.

Or... speculate all you want and try and pass such speculation off as fact.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I've saved you the trouble... read the following:

If the DP is used in 0.00005 percent of homicides... exactly how can you establish as a fact that it is ineffective as a deterrent?

I'm not saying we do it... but if it was on the table for all murders and monitored trends after such a move... then we would know for certain (factually) if it was a deterrent or not.

catefrances

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

catefrances said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I never quoted you because for some reason... the quotes appeared like a spectrum in your post.

For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.

I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.

I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.

Natural consequences? Theyre only 'natural' because our so called civilised society have made it so. Somehow weve made it the norm to accept execution as punishment. I can not be one of those who sees it as such. I thought as a society wedve moved past killing our own for punishment.

So what are you?

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

catefrances said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

catefrances said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I never quoted you because for some reason... the quotes appeared like a spectrum in your post.

For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.

I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.

I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.

Natural consequences? Theyre only 'natural' because our so called civilised society have made it so. Somehow weve made it the norm to accept execution as punishment. I can not be one of those who sees it as such. I thought as a society wedve moved past killing our own for punishment.

So we would be extremely civilized if we make the killer say sorry?

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A serial or mass murderer


Nt be for the murdered ause theyre dead and can no longer.

?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

It's not a moot point. The death penalty isn't a deterrent. That's it. It's a fact.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Do some research other than spouting off. Even Wolf- the most eloquent and informed opponent of the DP in this thread- conceded what I just said.

If the DP is used in 0.00005 percent of homicides... exactly how can you establish as a fact that it is ineffective as a deterrent?

I'm not saying we do it... but if it was on the table for all murders and monitored trends after such a move... then we would know for certain (factually) if it was a deterrent or not.

so if the DP is used in such a low percentage of murder convictions then whats the point of it? its hardly consistent and is clearly subjective. it puts a different price on each individual victim... i don't see that as justice. either kill every murderer or kill none of them. im for killing none of them cause to me it smacks of revenge... and that's not justice.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

If it was up to me... I'd be dusting off Old Sparky for a shitbird in Calgary right now.

Previous prison sentences had no effect on this loser and as fate would have it... it appears he killed a young woman and her five year old daughter.

There have been very few details given regarding the case so- as I said- dusting off Old Sparky would be the initial step to take at this point. If it turns out he did kill the young mom and her five year old child... saying good bye would be appropriate. I mean wow, man... really? Really? Go ahead... kill the mom for your fun... then do your six months in a Canadian penal institution after the taxpayers foot the bill for a legal defence team and your lengthy court proceedings... but you couldn't have left the little girl alone?

It would take a really special person to kill a child. One this world simply does not need inhabiting it. Gross, man. Just f**king gross.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

This topic came up in the Roof thread.

I had to scroll back quite a ways to pull it out from Halifax's threads (lol).

But to the topic... the piece of shit in California that doused the service station and attendant in flammable fluid... then lit them both on fire can go.

An eye for an eye would mean we would light him on fire and let him melt, but we are above that. He deserves worse, but a clinically administered death is justice enough.

tbergs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

This topic came up in the Roof thread.

I had to scroll back quite a ways to pull it out from Halifax's threads (lol).

But to the topic... the piece of shit in California that doused the service station and attendant in flammable fluid... then lit them both on fire can go.

An eye for an eye would mean we would light him on fire and let him melt, but we are above that. He deserves worse, but a clinically administered death is justice enough.

I guess I'll throw my thoughts in to this. Justice for who? Someone who is dead is not suffering at all for what they did. Sure, there's the final hours of agonizing over what's to come, but then, nothing.

All of the people I arrested for years didn't care about the possible penalty when they committed the act. Oh yes, they pleaded and begged for mercy once caught, but up until then they were just doing what they had decided was worth the risk. It's not a deterrent or an equally weighted punishment.

A life sentence with no parole is a punishment that actually carries the weight needed. Have you been in a prison or a jail? Imagine "living" out the rest of your life from now until you die in a cell. That's a hell I would never want. Sanctioned murder is nothing compared to that punishment.

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
Even though 30b doesn't consider anything I post relevant I will attempt to convey his thought on this as it is mine too if right.
No human capable of feeling nothing towards taking a life deserves their own.
Life in prison is for someone that will forever know what they did is not human.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
Even though 30b doesn't consider anything I post relevant I will attempt to convey his thought on this as it is mine too if right.
No human capable of feeling nothing towards taking a life deserves their own.
Life in prison is for someone that will forever know what they did is not human.

Give yourself more credit.

I read your posts. You've made a point of being an agitant as a Trump advocate but there's signs of intelligent life.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

tbergs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

This topic came up in the Roof thread.

I had to scroll back quite a ways to pull it out from Halifax's threads (lol).

But to the topic... the piece of shit in California that doused the service station and attendant in flammable fluid... then lit them both on fire can go.

An eye for an eye would mean we would light him on fire and let him melt, but we are above that. He deserves worse, but a clinically administered death is justice enough.

I guess I'll throw my thoughts in to this. Justice for who? Someone who is dead is not suffering at all for what they did. Sure, there's the final hours of agonizing over what's to come, but then, nothing.

All of the people I arrested for years didn't care about the possible penalty when they committed the act. Oh yes, they pleaded and begged for mercy once caught, but up until then they were just doing what they had decided was worth the risk. It's not a deterrent or an equally weighted punishment.

A life sentence with no parole is a punishment that actually carries the weight needed. Have you been in a prison or a jail? Imagine "living" out the rest of your life from now until you die in a cell. That's a hell I would never want. Sanctioned murder is nothing compared to that punishment.

How about justice for his grieving wife?

tbergs

I understand what you're saying and agree that someone who feels remorse will suffer much more in prison; however, under the appropriate restrictions, someone who doesn't feel some level of remorse would still have a miserable existence to serve and only have their thoughts to keep them company the majority of time. That's enough to drive anyone insane.

I don't think there's a one sentence fits all solution to life sentencing so there has to be more intensive restrictions the more heinous your crime. That beats the one size fits all approach to the death penalty.

Not to even mention that our justice system is still flawed and doesn't always convict the right person. You can't provide justice to the wrongfully convicted when they're dead.

tbergs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tbergs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

This topic came up in the Roof thread.

I had to scroll back quite a ways to pull it out from Halifax's threads (lol).

But to the topic... the piece of shit in California that doused the service station and attendant in flammable fluid... then lit them both on fire can go.

An eye for an eye would mean we would light him on fire and let him melt, but we are above that. He deserves worse, but a clinically administered death is justice enough.

I guess I'll throw my thoughts in to this. Justice for who? Someone who is dead is not suffering at all for what they did. Sure, there's the final hours of agonizing over what's to come, but then, nothing.

All of the people I arrested for years didn't care about the possible penalty when they committed the act. Oh yes, they pleaded and begged for mercy once caught, but up until then they were just doing what they had decided was worth the risk. It's not a deterrent or an equally weighted punishment.

A life sentence with no parole is a punishment that actually carries the weight needed. Have you been in a prison or a jail? Imagine "living" out the rest of your life from now until you die in a cell. That's a hell I would never want. Sanctioned murder is nothing compared to that punishment.

How about justice for his grieving wife?

An eye for an eye isn't justice, that's state sanctioned revenge. Imprisoning someone for the rest of their life, taking away every right they have on this planet and controlling every action of the rest of their life isn't justice? And not every survivor desires the death of the convicted so how do we manage that scenario? Do we let them decide life in prison or death to appease their feeling of justice? I think the state and government need to make it clear that murder is never justified.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

tbergs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tbergs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

This topic came up in the Roof thread.

I had to scroll back quite a ways to pull it out from Halifax's threads (lol).

But to the topic... the piece of shit in California that doused the service station and attendant in flammable fluid... then lit them both on fire can go.

An eye for an eye would mean we would light him on fire and let him melt, but we are above that. He deserves worse, but a clinically administered death is justice enough.

I guess I'll throw my thoughts in to this. Justice for who? Someone who is dead is not suffering at all for what they did. Sure, there's the final hours of agonizing over what's to come, but then, nothing.

All of the people I arrested for years didn't care about the possible penalty when they committed the act. Oh yes, they pleaded and begged for mercy once caught, but up until then they were just doing what they had decided was worth the risk. It's not a deterrent or an equally weighted punishment.

A life sentence with no parole is a punishment that actually carries the weight needed. Have you been in a prison or a jail? Imagine "living" out the rest of your life from now until you die in a cell. That's a hell I would never want. Sanctioned murder is nothing compared to that punishment.

How about justice for his grieving wife?

An eye for an eye isn't justice, that's state sanctioned revenge. Imprisoning someone for the rest of their life, taking away every right they have on this planet and controlling every action of the rest of their life isn't justice? And not every survivor desires the death of the convicted so how do we manage that scenario? Do we let them decide life in prison or death to appease their feeling of justice? I think the state and government need to make it clear that murder is never justified.

Semantics. 'State sanctioned revenge' is the fancy toss back term opponents of the DP like to use. Even if you don't like it... the DP is a form of justice that is legal and preferred by many. To counter 'state sanctioned revenge', one can call life in prison such as the sentence Susan Smith has been serving (getting laid, getting her laundry done for her, cable television, hot meals, etc.) a 'State sanctioned party' to suit their belief system. Neither helps the argument.

In the extreme murder cases like mass, serial, or ones that feature confinement and torture or involve children... there are some people that do not desire a penalty of death, but most do. I'm okay with survivors making a plea for mercy if that is their inclination. Justice should serve them more than it should serve armchair philosophists completely unattached to the crime.

And murder is never justified. So, when people rape and kill toddlers or infants, or when they kill a bunch of random people for kicks... and after the fact- as you stated- beg for forgiveness... I'm not inclined to be forgiving. But you are... we can leave it at that.

I've spent considerable time in this thread. So have many others. Despite a few moments where people, including myself, have stepped out of line for a moment or two... the discussion has been a wonderful exercise (at least for me).

HughFreakingDillon

I love that this showed up in my "participated" feed on Christmas eve. Gave me the warm fuzzies revisiting it.

I'm about to go pick up my god loving/fearing family from church and then enjoy a family Christmas meal with the in laws. See you in this thread next week sometime. Maybe. Not sure if I can stomach it again.