The Death Penalty

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

There is a contradiction in this piece. Ignoring other, much more significant variables that contribute to crime, Bowers implies that states which employ the death penalty increase the likelihood for further violence. I'm not sure how he comes to this conclusion? Then, he suggests (accurately in my mind) that "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

How can someone suggest the death penalty will 'increase the likelihood of violence' and then state that murders are committed in moments of passion or anger?

Further... I'm not exactly sure how society is brutalized by the death penalty. I would suggest that society is brutalized by savage murderers committing unspeakable crimes.

This is how someone might begin disputing this.

Why do you keep editing the quotes that you comment on?


This is what you quoted: "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

And this is the actual sentence: "Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

Byrnzie

DS1119 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Cause it's not truth. As long as those "articles" keep all costs of housing inmates confined to life imprisonment out of the "studies" they are far from accurate.

Why don't you just admit that you're wrong?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-glo ... 73345.html
According to The Legislative Analyst's Office, a nonpartisan government agency, Prop 34 will save the state $130 million every year.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... 27s_Office
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), located in Sacramento, California, has been providing fiscal and policy advice to the California Legislature for more than 70 years. It is known for its fiscal and programmatic expertise and nonpartisan analysis of the state budget. The office serves as the "eyes and ears" for the Legislature to ensure that the executive branch is implementing legislative policy in a cost efficient and effective manner.

...More generally, the office is a staff resource to all legislators. The LAO also performs the following functions:

Budget "Control." The LAO reviews requests by the administration to make changes to the budget after it is enacted. These reviews are used primarily by members of the JLBC and the fiscal committees.

Special Reports. Throughout the year, the office prepares special reports on the state budget and topics of interest to the Legislature.

Initiatives and Ballot Measures. The office estimates the fiscal effect on state and local government of all proposed initiatives (prior to circulation) and prepares analyses of all measures that qualify for the statewide ballot.

Forecasting. The LAO forecasts the state revenues and expenditures.

Because I'm not wwong, that's why.

Yes you are, as I've proven above.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

There is a contradiction in this piece. Ignoring other, much more significant variables that contribute to crime, Bowers implies that states which employ the death penalty increase the likelihood for further violence. I'm not sure how he comes to this conclusion? Then, he suggests (accurately in my mind) that "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

How can someone suggest the death penalty will 'increase the likelihood of violence' and then state that murders are committed in moments of passion or anger?

Further... I'm not exactly sure how society is brutalized by the death penalty. I would suggest that society is brutalized by savage murderers committing unspeakable crimes.

This is how someone might begin disputing this.

Why do you keep editing the quotes that you comment on?


This is what you quoted: "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

And this is the actual sentence: "Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

Seriously? You wish to hold me to APA formatting on AMT? Fair enough. I should have written my post as follows:

" ( . . . ) murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

instead of:

"murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

It is not as if my omission left critical text that completely altered the significance of the passage I referred to. The term frequently could have easily been tossed in there and my point would still remain intact: the passage you cut and pasted was eloquent... but lacked true substance.

You have asked a question of me regarding my writing habits on this forum. I have one for you: why don't you summarize the massive pieces you paste all the time and provide the link to the piece afterwards (for anyone seeking clarification)? Speaking for myself, when I come to this forum, I would much prefer to read someone's original thoughts... even if they have been influenced through someone else's idea (hence, the submission of the link afterwards to give some credit to the source that supports your developed idea).

DS1119

Byrnzie wrote:

Yes you are, as I've proven above.

Sure you have. Keep believing that.

DS1119

Just rewatched the special about the Bin Laden assassination hosted by Brian Williams,

Although Oblahblah politically says he doesn't support the death penalty he basically did just that. No trial or jury either. His comments about it.

'It was deep-seated satisfaction'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Bush.html

Political bullshit.

Go Beavers

DS1119 wrote:

Someone kills someone in cold blood they are scum and deserve the same result that they passed down on someone else. Fry them.

So it's for vengeance, not for a deterrent?

Byrnzie

DS1119 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Yes you are, as I've proven above.

Sure you have. Keep believing that.

It has nothing to do with belief. You are wrong. Period.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, then go ahead and provide it.

But I know you don't. Though you just aren't capable of admitting you're wrong, and so just keep on stirring the pot anyway.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I should have written my post as follows:

" ( . . . ) murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

instead of:

"murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

No, you should have written as follows, and as it was originally stated: "Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

catefrances

DS1119 wrote:

Someone kills someone in cold blood they are scum and deserve the same result that they passed down on someone else. Fry them.

i sincerely hope anger such as yours can be sustained when someone you love kills someone and you face a lifetime without them.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

...the costs associated with capital punishment really have no place in this argument. Cost efficiency is not a point that should be debated when deciding on a course of action that might mean taking someone's life. This debate should be centered on morality: is it right or is it wrong?

You can read back through this thread to see my answer to your question.

dimitrispearljam

i never understand why this turn to what cost more..

i guess the conversation has to do if its right or wrong,the idea..if the penalty for some crimes is death penalty or not
if we put money on the conversatoion,we lost the whole...

if u want to save money,then anyone do a crime,even steal a dollar,shoot him with one bullet on the head,problem solved,will save money,for court,paperwork,judges,policeman,transfer,jail clothes,food,death penalty cost and etc..

will cost you like a dollar each criminal...whooohoo.. :roll:

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

...the costs associated with capital punishment really have no place in this argument. Cost efficiency is not a point that should be debated when deciding on a course of action that might mean taking someone's life. This debate should be centered on morality: is it right or is it wrong?

I agree with this wholeheartedly, which is why I don't get why one of the main points of people who are pro death penalty keep saying "it's cheaper to kill them". it's not only false, but a stupid argument in the first place.

I would have the same opinion of the death penalty if it were 10 times the cost of housing the inmate.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

...the costs associated with capital punishment really have no place in this argument. Cost efficiency is not a point that should be debated when deciding on a course of action that might mean taking someone's life. This debate should be centered on morality: is it right or is it wrong?

You can read back through this thread to see my answer to your question.

The question was rhetorical. I know (and respect) exactly where you are at in this issue. I'm just not there with you. When I engage in a discussion such as this, I usually do so to force me to think of the topic in a different way. I'm capable of doing so and have changed my opinions regarding various issues as I have grown.

I'll say this: I still feel the same way after reading every post in this thread (and yours a few times). You and others have certainly had me question my line of thinking, but I still feel the same. I might be wrong, but I own these thoughts and they feel right to me given how I have formulated them.

dimitrispearljam

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I'll say this: I still feel the same way after reading every post in this thread (and yours a few times). You and others have certainly had me question my line of thinking, but I still feel the same. I might be wrong, but I own these thoughts and they feel right to me given how I have formulated them.

if you ask me,this is very healthy and great thing my friend...i like the way you put it..
no matter sometimes the facts,the way we fell is the one guide our thoughts and the way to go

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I should have written my post as follows:

" ( . . . ) murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

instead of:

"murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

No, you should have written as follows, and as it was originally stated: "Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."

We still discuss my writing style. Whether right or wrong... does the omitted word dramatically alter the meaning of the text? If frequently had been instead rarely and it was omitted... then I can understand why you might be bothered by my omission. In that situation, I would have clearly chosen parts of the text and changed the original meaning of the script to support my idea.

The very minor edit of the quotation I used is a side issue though. I'm still of the opinion that as eloquent as the passage sounds... the piece offers poorly developed opinion as well as conflicting ideology. You never spoke to that assertion.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dimitrispearljam wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I'll say this: I still feel the same way after reading every post in this thread (and yours a few times). You and others have certainly had me question my line of thinking, but I still feel the same. I might be wrong, but I own these thoughts and they feel right to me given how I have formulated them.

if you ask me,this is very healthy and great thing my friend...i like the way you put it..
no matter sometimes the facts,the way we fell is the one guide our thoughts and the way to go

Dimi... thanks.

And by the way... I'm really enjoying your passion advocating for gun control. Not being a US citizen, it truly shows that we can be a global community when people such as yourself plead for the safer living conditions for the children of another country.

If we could have one gun advocate finally say, "Gawd. You know... what the hell was I thinking? We gotta get these guns off the damn streets and we gotta do it now!" Instead of, "Heart attacks kill people too. Why don't we ban Big Macs?" Well geez... I guess we'd feel like Rocky Balboa wouldn't we?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

...the costs associated with capital punishment really have no place in this argument. Cost efficiency is not a point that should be debated when deciding on a course of action that might mean taking someone's life. This debate should be centered on morality: is it right or is it wrong?

I agree with this wholeheartedly, which is why I don't get why one of the main points of people who are pro death penalty keep saying "it's cheaper to kill them". it's not only false, but a stupid argument in the first place.

I would have the same opinion of the death penalty if it were 10 times the cost of housing the inmate.

As a steadfast death penalty advocate for the 'extreme cases'... trust me when I say I question whether I am morally bankrupt or not on this issue. My opinion has not come without much probing. I am not a cold person and wish there was no need for such a discussion. Given reality though and forced to deal with crimes we really wish had not occurred... this is where I have come to.

dimitrispearljam

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I'll say this: I still feel the same way after reading every post in this thread (and yours a few times). You and others have certainly had me question my line of thinking, but I still feel the same. I might be wrong, but I own these thoughts and they feel right to me given how I have formulated them.

if you ask me,this is very healthy and great thing my friend...i like the way you put it..
no matter sometimes the facts,the way we fell is the one guide our thoughts and the way to go

Dimi... thanks.

And by the way... I'm really enjoying your passion advocating for gun control. Not being a US citizen, it truly shows that we can be a global community when people such as yourself plead for the safer living conditions for the children of another country.

man,children are the future...my future,your future...everybody future..
its crazy not to create a better world for them and just answer more guns to guns,eye for an eye..
its stupid instead of teach our kids what the good thing to do to teach them to put more violence over the violence is already there..
we are at almost 2013....the time people did public trials and accuse someone as witch and burn them at the center of the villages had past along time ago...

catefrances

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

...the costs associated with capital punishment really have no place in this argument. Cost efficiency is not a point that should be debated when deciding on a course of action that might mean taking someone's life. This debate should be centered on morality: is it right or is it wrong?

I agree with this wholeheartedly, which is why I don't get why one of the main points of people who are pro death penalty keep saying "it's cheaper to kill them". it's not only false, but a stupid argument in the first place.

I would have the same opinion of the death penalty if it were 10 times the cost of housing the inmate.

you should know by now that in this capitalist society of ours it always comes down to dollars and cents.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

We still discuss my writing style.

It has nothing to do with style. You edited the sentence to suit you.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Whether right or wrong... does the omitted word dramatically alter the meaning of the text?

This is what you said: ...he suggests (accurately in my mind) that "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively.

How can someone suggest the death penalty will 'increase the likelihood of violence' and then state that murders are committed in moments of passion or anger?"

Whereas the actual sentence read: 'Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively.'

He didn't say that all murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively, as you implied by omitting the word 'frequently'.

So why did you omit that word from your quote? Why didn't you just paste the sentence in it's entirety?