The Death Penalty

Hugh Freaking Dillon

dudeman wrote:

Sure.

As parents, teachers and community leaders we need to make sure that young people have the opportunities they need to live as productive members of a society. That means no more kids slipping through the cracks in school, the opportunity for higher education, meaningful employment and a sense of belonging in the world. Also, it means establishing solid moral values in our children. That starts at home and should be supported in school, business, government, media and culture.

The idea here is to prevent people from turning to a life of crime and/or desperation in the first place.

in a society with incredible class differences, this will never be possible. sorry to say.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

When you say, "They have no such needs, beyond a purely emotional response" this is when I say that essentially you are telling them to 'get over it'.

Except I'm doing nothing of the sort.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

If you can say societies are uncivilized for exercising the death penalty, then I can say societies are indifferent to their murdered and their survivors with their generous treatment offered to their murderers. Given these two camps, I can rest easier in the second.

And just what 'generous treatment' are you referring to here? Do you mean this generous treatment?: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... l-facility

Or this generous treatment?: http://solitarywatch.com/2013/03/11/voi ... han-death/

Byrnzie

Byrnzie wrote:

Nobody is saying it, period. You're simply holding up a paper tiger. How does murdering someone constitute 'acting towards their needs'?

And nobody's 'advocating for a sick mutant'. Again, just a paper tiger.

As an aside, is 'paper tiger' the correct term here? I think not. What's the correct phrase to describe somebody creating an example or situation that wasn't there to begin with, with the aim of supporting their argument?

I suspect my brain isn't working properly on this one.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

When you say, "They have no such needs, beyond a purely emotional response" this is when I say that essentially you are telling them to 'get over it'.

Except I'm doing nothing of the sort.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

If you can say societies are uncivilized for exercising the death penalty, then I can say societies are indifferent to their murdered and their survivors with their generous treatment offered to their murderers. Given these two camps, I can rest easier in the second.

And just what 'generous treatment' are you referring to here? Do you mean this generous treatment?: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... l-facility

Or this generous treatment?: http://solitarywatch.com/2013/03/11/voi ... han-death/

No, Byrnzie. I referred to the Olson case. I feel he was treated too generously (as do most others).

I haven't opened these links because I think I have before if they are the ones you left in an earlier post. They reek of injustice and I don't wish those conditions upon anyone. Well... hold on. No, I'll leave it at that.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Get serious. The comment in blue would suggest that you think that the Death Penalty is in no way whatsoever a deterrent. This might be your belief, but it is in contrast to many others who feel it is- including people smarter than you and I. There is no way you can dismiss the notion.

Not all potential murderers would consider the DP as a deterrent, but some would. Period. To suggest otherwise is exactly as you put it to me: so ingrained in your belief that you refuse to acknowledge the mathematical and even practical (for that matter) certainty of the DP acting as a deterrent in some instances.

I can relate to much of your last paragraph regarding our turnstile penal system. The only thing we truly differ on is the height of consequences we would like to see applied to our worst offenders. I would like to see Michael Rafferty be executed for his obscenity (the rape and murder of 8 year old Victoria Stafford). You would like to see him locked up for life with no opportunity at parole... correct?

the comment you blued does not suggest any absolute, but you always must go to the extreme, don't you? I never said it would never be a deterrent, but in almost 0 cases that would be the case. the only cases that it would possibly, POSSIBLY, act as a deterrent is murders that were premeditated. Most murders are an act of the moment, so to believe that any, ANY of those people might stop to think of their potential to be executed is laughable. they don't stop to think "hey, I might go to jail for the rest of my natural life and get raped 6 times a day" and stop what they are doing. So the death penalty would do nothing to stop the act either.

And you don't jump to extremes? Case in point: the highlighted blue comments.

Aside from any pettiness... I agree with you that the spontaneous murders would see little to no change in occurrences. But remember... the premeditated ones are the ones I would likely advocate for the Death Penalty: the drug deal gone bad and the hold up gone bad do not fall into the categories I have already stated that should hold a higher punishment.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I see you also completely ignored what I now put in red. Why is that?

yes, life in prison to me should be LIFE in prison, not this garbage of 25 years, getting out in 10 for good fucking behaviour and double pre-trial custody credit. that's bullshit.

Hugh, the comment you highlighted is a tough one to argue against: a point well taken and not lost upon me. With that said, you have been selective yourself on occasion over the months (years now?) as we have gone down this road. I have presented some scenarios that have not been spoken to or unchallenged by those in opposition to my way of thinking. I never viewed those as small victories (I'm not saying you have in this instance), instead I hoped that they at least made you stop and think (this is what I presumed anyways whether I am right or wrong).

Which is what you did for me here. Thanks for that.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Nobody is saying it, period. You're simply holding up a paper tiger. How does murdering someone constitute 'acting towards their needs'?

And nobody's 'advocating for a sick mutant'. Again, just a paper tiger.

As an aside, is 'paper tiger' the correct term here? I think not. What's the correct phrase to describe somebody creating an example or situation that wasn't there to begin with, with the aim of supporting their argument?

I suspect my brain isn't working properly on this one.

Perhaps speaking hypothetically? Regardless, I understood what you meant here, Byrnzie. You were likely distracted by that asshole yapping on his phone. Isn't it about time to resurrect the asshole thread by the way? That one was a good one!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dudeman wrote:

and I know you don't want to hear this, we need to be willing and able to defend ourselves and our loved ones from violent attackers.......with deadly force, if necessary. If a criminal makes a conscious effort to break into your home with the intentions of harming those innocent people inside, they need to be stopped before they can harm the ones you love.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not opposed to defending your family. I only suggest that there are various weapons that would certainly suffice other than AR-15s- that also have the potential to wreak havoc in classrooms and movie theaters. Who's going to knock your front door down with you standing there with a 12 gauge?

People can own shotguns to protect their homes if they are that worried about intruders... and no assault rifles to fall into wrong hands. Win- Win. Yay!!! Gun debate is over!!!

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Perhaps speaking hypothetically? Regardless, I understood what you meant here, Byrnzie. You were likely distracted by that asshole yapping on his phone. Isn't it about time to resurrect the asshole thread by the way? That one was a good one!

Didn't that one get locked?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

And you don't jump to extremes? Case in point: the highlighted blue comments.

Aside from any pettiness... I agree with you that the spontaneous murders would see little to no change in occurrences. But remember... the premeditated ones are the ones I would likely advocate for the Death Penalty: the drug deal gone bad and the hold up gone bad do not fall into the categories I have already stated that should hold a higher punishment.

my mistake. I should have said almost 0 PERCENT. because I honestly feel that the amount that it would deter would amount to that. I don't know any actual stats, but I would lean towards the ratio of premeditated murders vs spur of the moment to be incredibly high.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

And you don't jump to extremes? Case in point: the highlighted blue comments.

Aside from any pettiness... I agree with you that the spontaneous murders would see little to no change in occurrences. But remember... the premeditated ones are the ones I would likely advocate for the Death Penalty: the drug deal gone bad and the hold up gone bad do not fall into the categories I have already stated that should hold a higher punishment.

my mistake. I should have said almost 0 PERCENT. because I honestly feel that the amount that it would deter would amount to that. I don't know any actual stats, but I would lean towards the ratio of premeditated murders vs spur of the moment to be incredibly high.

I wouldn't argue this. And, in my line of thinking, the DP would not be a rampant method of punishment considering the number of crimes that do not meet the criteria for it.

The grieving mother of the gangster that was killed in a drug deal will have to understand that her son was up to no good and played in a industry that carried significant risk for all players- given the nature of the business. Prison is very suitable for such murderers.

The grieving mother who's innocent child was snatched away from her as she walked home from school should expect more. Fortunately, in the bigger picture, we don't have to stomach such brutal events very often... but in the event we do... let's respond appropriately: with unequivocal outrage towards the perpetrator and support for the murdered child and grieving parents. For these types of cold, heartless, and evil crimes... the DP is not only appropriate, but necessary in my mind.

Richard Allen Davis has lived too long from my perspective. He needs to go. Polly Klaas and her parents deserve much better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Polly_Klaas

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Richard Allen Davis has lived too long from my perspective. He needs to go. Polly Klaas and her parents deserve much better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Polly_Klaas

sick fuck.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Richard Allen Davis has lived too long from my perspective. He needs to go. Polly Klaas and her parents deserve much better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Polly_Klaas

sick fuck.

Yup. He spit out some excruciating words enraging Polly's father and all others in the courtroom. I don't wish to repeat them on this forum, but trust me when I say that at a very minimum... he's not nice.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Richard Allen Davis has lived too long from my perspective. He needs to go. Polly Klaas and her parents deserve much better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Polly_Klaas

sick fuck.

Yup. He spit out some excruciating words enraging Polly's father and all others in the courtroom. I don't wish to repeat them on this forum, but trust me when I say that at a very minimum... he's not nice.

against my own better judgement, I found it and read it. wow. if there's any case for the death penalty, this guy is it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

against my own better judgement, I found it and read it. wow. if there's any case for the death penalty, this guy is it.

I'm not deliberately trying to pile on, but I Google searched Richard Allen Davis. Jumping out at me was this YouTube entry of a recording from the CBS evening news (and Dan Rather) on sentencing day for Richard Allen Davis. Of course, my interest in this subject got the better of me and I watched it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRmBd0DiH6Q

The judge's comment at sentencing speaks volumes: "This is always a traumatic and emotional decision for a judge, but you've made it very easy today by your conduct."

It's not long and it's not graphic, but I don't think the strongest opponent of the Death Penalty can watch it without having their belief system severely tested. With that said, anything that can put your belief system to the test is a worthwhile exercise. Proceed with caution.

dudeman

That's the crux of the issue then, isn't it? Unless we address these issues, all we have left to do is complain about the consequences on the internet and watch out nation and societal structures destroy themselves.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

dudeman wrote:

Sure.

As parents, teachers and community leaders we need to make sure that young people have the opportunities they need to live as productive members of a society. That means no more kids slipping through the cracks in school, the opportunity for higher education, meaningful employment and a sense of belonging in the world. Also, it means establishing solid moral values in our children. That starts at home and should be supported in school, business, government, media and culture.

The idea here is to prevent people from turning to a life of crime and/or desperation in the first place.

in a society with incredible class differences, this will never be possible. sorry to say.

dudeman

[quote="Thirty Bills Unpaid"Thanks for the clarification. I'm not opposed to defending your family. I only suggest that there are various weapons that would certainly suffice other than AR-15s- that also have the potential to wreak havoc in classrooms and movie theaters. Who's going to knock your front door down with you standing there with a 12 gauge?

People can own shotguns to protect their homes if they are that worried about intruders... and no assault rifles to fall into wrong hands. Win- Win. Yay!!! Gun debate is over!!! [/quote]

So as long as AR-15's are banned, rounded-up and destroyed, the world will be safe from harm and evil? AWESOME!!!!!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

dudeman wrote:

That's the crux of the issue then, isn't it? Unless we address these issues, all we have left to do is complain about the consequences on the internet and watch out nation and societal structures destroy themselves.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

dudeman wrote:

Sure.

As parents, teachers and community leaders we need to make sure that young people have the opportunities they need to live as productive members of a society. That means no more kids slipping through the cracks in school, the opportunity for higher education, meaningful employment and a sense of belonging in the world. Also, it means establishing solid moral values in our children. That starts at home and should be supported in school, business, government, media and culture.

The idea here is to prevent people from turning to a life of crime and/or desperation in the first place.

in a society with incredible class differences, this will never be possible. sorry to say.

yes, but then you can't have a capitalist society then. either you have communism or you don't. there's no halfway.

dudeman

Not communism, common moral standards as a society. That hasn't been the case here since the 1960's, at least. As it is now, Americans are too busy fighting amongst themselves over money, political power, recognition of their "movement", gender, race, political party, sexual orientation.........whatever. Not many people put being an American first anymore. Unless, collectively, we can recover from that...

Hugh Freaking Dillon

dudeman wrote:

Not communism, common moral standards as a society. That hasn't been the case here since the 1960's, at least. As it is now, Americans are too busy fighting amongst themselves over money, political power, recognition of their "movement", gender, race, political party, sexual orientation.........whatever. Not many people put being an American first anymore. Unless, collectively, we can recover from that...

I call it a societal revolution. it's been going on ever since Vietnam.