The Death Penalty

1…457910…124

Comments

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Jason P wrote:
    It's 100% effective method. Even without a cellmate, he will be in contact with other human beings at some point in the future and you cannot guarantee 100% that he will never harm another human being in the future.

    I wonder if troy davis would have wanted him as a cellmate? Deterrent or not, this guy is defective to the point he cannot function within society, is beyond rehabilitation, and presents an extreme risk to those that encounter him. Is it more humane to stick this guy in a small cell and let him rot away in isolation or put him out of his misery?

    can you guarantee a drunk driver isn't ever going to drive drunk again? ... no ... life isn't about offering guarantees ... i'm sure there are means by which they could have facilitated his incarceration without endangering others ...

    as for the humane point ... i do believe in assisted suicide ... but that's totally different ... if dude wants out - i'm ok with it ... the state killing him - i am not ...
  • Monster Rain
    Monster Rain Posts: 1,415
    Supporting the death penalty doesn't mean that someone thinks "violence is the solution to all that ails." That's a large leap to reach that conclusion. It's not like death penalty advocates are in favor of chopping the hands off thieves or beating drug dealers with steel pipes.

    As much as we'd like to think that our prisons are escape-proof, there really is no such thing as a 100% secure prison. Convicts find ways to escape every year. Killing the ones who have been proven to commit premeditated murder is the only way to ensure that they won't escape and kill someone else.
    polaris_x wrote:
    what it boils down to is this ...

    you want to live in a world where violence is the solution to all that ails ... so be it ... is it any wonder that america is involved in so many conflicts around the world where many INNOCENT people have died!?? ... i wonder if troy davis wanted to live in a such a world?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Supporting the death penalty doesn't mean that someone thinks "violence is the solution to all that ails." That's a large leap to reach that conclusion. It's not like death penalty advocates are in favor of chopping the hands off thieves or beating drug dealers with steel pipes.

    As much as we'd like to think that our prisons are escape-proof, there really is no such thing as a 100% secure prison. Convicts find ways to escape every year. Killing the ones who have been proven to commit premeditated murder is the only way to ensure that they won't escape and kill someone else.

    why not just cut their limbs off? ... i'm pretty sure they won't be able to escape nor kill anyone without legs and/or arms ...

    if advocates of capital punishment don't believe in violence then why is that none of them seek other remedies to what the problem is? ... most advocates are satisfying the same lust serial killers have ... it's just rooted in some notion of justice ...
  • Monster Rain
    Monster Rain Posts: 1,415
    Sure, you could surgically paralyze them, too. :roll: I think the Supreme Court would block either of those forms of punishment, though. Something about "cruel and unusual punishment."

    I thought I explained why we don't seek other remedies to the problem. Life in prison without parole doesn't guarantee they won't escape or kill a guard or other inmates who committed lesser crimes regardless of whether they have a cellmate or not. What remedy beyond prison do you suggest? Rehabilitation? I'd say that would have a very low success rate among people who commit that type of crime and it isn't exactly justice to release someone who committed first-degree murder back into society in the hopes that the rehabilitation was a success.
    polaris_x wrote:
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Supporting the death penalty doesn't mean that someone thinks "violence is the solution to all that ails." That's a large leap to reach that conclusion. It's not like death penalty advocates are in favor of chopping the hands off thieves or beating drug dealers with steel pipes.

    As much as we'd like to think that our prisons are escape-proof, there really is no such thing as a 100% secure prison. Convicts find ways to escape every year. Killing the ones who have been proven to commit premeditated murder is the only way to ensure that they won't escape and kill someone else.

    why not just cut their limbs off? ... i'm pretty sure they won't be able to escape nor kill anyone without legs and/or arms ...

    if advocates of capital punishment don't believe in violence then why is that none of them seek other remedies to what the problem is? ... most advocates are satisfying the same lust serial killers have ... it's just rooted in some notion of justice ...
  • chadwick
    chadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    edited November 2011
    polaris_x wrote:
    as for the humane point ... i do believe in assisted suicide ... but that's totally different ... if dude wants out - i'm ok with it ... the state killing him - i am not ...
    what if the monster in prison wants to check out and he has a painful illness of some kind?
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."
    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    polaris_x wrote:
    lukin2006 wrote:
    I'm not mocking the effects of child abuse, I'm mocking the effects of child abuse as a defense for murder...

    In Canada the system believes in rehabilitation...thats why almost every one who goes to jail is eligible for parole.

    which in essence is mocking the effects of child abuse ....

    dude you referred to is serving consecutive life sentences ... he wasn't going anywhere ...

    If its used as an excuse to harm others then yes i'm mocking it.

    I'm not mocking child abuse, it the people who use it as an excuse to harm others I'm mocking.
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Sure, you could surgically paralyze them, too. :roll: I think the Supreme Court would block either of those forms of punishment, though. Something about "cruel and unusual punishment."

    I thought I explained why we don't seek other remedies to the problem. Life in prison without parole doesn't guarantee they won't escape or kill a guard or other inmates who committed lesser crimes regardless of whether they have a cellmate or not. What remedy beyond prison do you suggest? Rehabilitation? I'd say that would have a very low success rate among people who commit that type of crime and it isn't exactly justice to release someone who committed first-degree murder back into society in the hopes that the rehabilitation was a success

    but death isn't cruel!?

    and i addressed your notion of guarantees ... the justice system isn't about guaranteeing anything ... in this particular case - i'm not looking at rehabilitation ... he's serving 7 consecutive life sentences ... i would incarcerate him and employ every possible measure to ensure that he is kept secure ... the first thing i would do is leave him in the maximum security prison as opposed to the medium security prison he got transferred to ... if the prison system can't ensure the safety of their guards and inmates - then they need to do a better job ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    chadwick wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    as for the humane point ... i do believe in assisted suicide ... but that's totally different ... if dude wants out - i'm ok with it ... the state killing him - i am not ...
    what if the monster in prison wants to check out and he has a painful illness of some kind?

    this happens all the time ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    lukin2006 wrote:
    If its used as an excuse to harm others then yes i'm mocking it.

    I'm not mocking child abuse, it the people who use it as an excuse to harm others I'm mocking.

    so ... victims of child abuse lose any form of empathy as soon as they do something bad themselves!? ... :(
  • chadwick
    chadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    polaris_x wrote:
    chadwick wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    as for the humane point ... i do believe in assisted suicide ... but that's totally different ... if dude wants out - i'm ok with it ... the state killing him - i am not ...
    what if the monster in prison wants to check out and he has a painful illness of some kind?

    this happens all the time ...
    thank you for that.
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."
    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
  • Monster Rain
    Monster Rain Posts: 1,415
    Death is a lot kinder than amputation, especially when it's death by means such as lethal injection. It's not like any of the states that have the death penalty are executing prisoners by stabbing them repeatedly or beating them over the head with hammers.

    When it comes to violent criminals who have displayed the ability to take another person's life after thinking about it beforehand, I'd like a guarantee that they won't get the opportunity to do it again. Barring a zombie uprising, the death penalty does that. No matter how tight the security is at a prison, there's always a way out. It might not be easy, but it can be done.
    polaris_x wrote:
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Sure, you could surgically paralyze them, too. :roll: I think the Supreme Court would block either of those forms of punishment, though. Something about "cruel and unusual punishment."

    I thought I explained why we don't seek other remedies to the problem. Life in prison without parole doesn't guarantee they won't escape or kill a guard or other inmates who committed lesser crimes regardless of whether they have a cellmate or not. What remedy beyond prison do you suggest? Rehabilitation? I'd say that would have a very low success rate among people who commit that type of crime and it isn't exactly justice to release someone who committed first-degree murder back into society in the hopes that the rehabilitation was a success

    but death isn't cruel!?

    and i addressed your notion of guarantees ... the justice system isn't about guaranteeing anything ... in this particular case - i'm not looking at rehabilitation ... he's serving 7 consecutive life sentences ... i would incarcerate him and employ every possible measure to ensure that he is kept secure ... the first thing i would do is leave him in the maximum security prison as opposed to the medium security prison he got transferred to ... if the prison system can't ensure the safety of their guards and inmates - then they need to do a better job ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Death is a lot kinder than amputation, especially when it's death by means such as lethal injection. It's not like any of the states that have the death penalty are executing prisoners by stabbing them repeatedly or beating them over the head with hammers.

    When it comes to violent criminals who have displayed the ability to take another person's life after thinking about it beforehand, I'd like a guarantee that they won't get the opportunity to do it again. Barring a zombie uprising, the death penalty does that. No matter how tight the security is at a prison, there's always a way out. It might not be easy, but it can be done.

    death is a lot kinder!?? ... to you maybe ... and why are you only focusing on the apparent pain!? ... ending one's life has got to fall under the category of "cruel" ...

    what about repeated drunk drivers!?? ... no one seems to care to want to guarantee they will never drive again? ... if you want those kind of guarantees in life - then death is certainly the answer for a lot of problems ...

    in any case - it appears your contention is that the only way to ensure a murderer doesn't murder again is to kill them ... which again brings me back to what this issue is about ... do you want to live in a society that utilizes death/violence to solve problems!?? ... i don't ...
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,296
    polaris_x wrote:
    lukin2006 wrote:
    If its used as an excuse to harm others then yes i'm mocking it.

    I'm not mocking child abuse, it the people who use it as an excuse to harm others I'm mocking.

    so ... victims of child abuse lose any form of empathy as soon as they do something bad themselves!? ... :(
    If you start killing people with premeditation, yes .... unless it's the bastard who assaulted you. If you kill someone unrelated and use past abuse as your defense, you can go cry me a river.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Monster Rain
    Monster Rain Posts: 1,415
    You can rehabilitate an alcohol problem a lot easier than you can rehabilitate the willingness the murder. That's like comparing taking hostages during an armed bank robbery with shoplifting a Tootsie Pop. But if you really need to know how it works here in the US, drunk drivers have their licenses revoked. If they do it again after they get their license back, they have it taken away for an even longer period. If they are fortunate enough to get their license back and drive drunk a 3rd time, most states will revoke the license for no less than 3 years (some may revoke it permanently, but I'm not 100% sure about that). At that point, the only way to get a license after those 3 years are up is to attend AA or some other type of counseling. For all drunk driving offenses, there are large fines associated with the crime and there are large fees imposed in order to get the license back once the suspension has ended and there is often jail time served.
    polaris_x wrote:
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Death is a lot kinder than amputation, especially when it's death by means such as lethal injection. It's not like any of the states that have the death penalty are executing prisoners by stabbing them repeatedly or beating them over the head with hammers.

    When it comes to violent criminals who have displayed the ability to take another person's life after thinking about it beforehand, I'd like a guarantee that they won't get the opportunity to do it again. Barring a zombie uprising, the death penalty does that. No matter how tight the security is at a prison, there's always a way out. It might not be easy, but it can be done.

    death is a lot kinder!?? ... to you maybe ... and why are you only focusing on the apparent pain!? ... ending one's life has got to fall under the category of "cruel" ...

    what about repeated drunk drivers!?? ... no one seems to care to want to guarantee they will never drive again? ... if you want those kind of guarantees in life - then death is certainly the answer for a lot of problems ...

    in any case - it appears your contention is that the only way to ensure a murderer doesn't murder again is to kill them ... which again brings me back to what this issue is about ... do you want to live in a society that utilizes death/violence to solve problems!?? ... i don't ...
  • Monster Rain
    Monster Rain Posts: 1,415
    If an abuse victim is committing murder or some other violent crime, they lose any empathy from me. I feel bad for anyone who is molested or beaten as a child, but there are psychiatrists, psychologists, support groups, etc. where someone can go to get help dealing with those issues before they begin harming others. It's not an excuse for killing someone or perpetrating the same type of abuse you endured on others.
    polaris_x wrote:
    lukin2006 wrote:
    If its used as an excuse to harm others then yes i'm mocking it.

    I'm not mocking child abuse, it the people who use it as an excuse to harm others I'm mocking.

    so ... victims of child abuse lose any form of empathy as soon as they do something bad themselves!? ... :(
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Monster Rain wrote:
    You can rehabilitate an alcohol problem a lot easier than you can rehabilitate the willingness the murder. That's like comparing taking hostages during an armed bank robbery with shoplifting a Tootsie Pop. But if you really need to know how it works here in the US, drunk drivers have their licenses revoked. If they do it again after they get their license back, they have it taken away for an even longer period. If they are fortunate enough to get their license back and drive drunk a 3rd time, most states will revoke the license for no less than 3 years (some may revoke it permanently, but I'm not 100% sure about that). At that point, the only way to get a license after those 3 years are up is to attend AA or some other type of counseling. For all drunk driving offenses, there are large fines associated with the crime and there are large fees imposed in order to get the license back once the suspension has ended and there is often jail time served

    but that doesn't guarantee they don't drive ... not having a license doesn't prevent that same person to a) drink nor b) drive ... your focus was on guarantees ... i'm pretty sure more people die from drunk drivers than serial killers ...

    either way - i reiterate again ... it's about what kind of society you want to live in ... america = #1 in violent crime in developed countries ... i think there is a correlation ... i'm guessing you don't ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Jason P wrote:
    If you start killing people with premeditation, yes .... unless it's the bastard who assaulted you. If you kill someone unrelated and use past abuse as your defense, you can go cry me a river.

    well ... that's that ... not much else to say to add to that ... i guess you don't have empathy for solidiers with ptsd either as soon as they commit violent acts ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Monster Rain wrote:
    If an abuse victim is committing murder or some other violent crime, they lose any empathy from me. I feel bad for anyone who is molested or beaten as a child, but there are psychiatrists, psychologists, support groups, etc. where someone can go to get help dealing with those issues before they begin harming others. It's not an excuse for killing someone or perpetrating the same type of abuse you endured on others.

    but often these kids don't get the help they need ... they are ignored and ostracized ... often made to feel as if it was their fault ...

    i'm saddened to see how black and white some of you guys treat this thing ... it's not about giving these killers an excuse or reason to kill ... it's about understanding how one becomes a serial killer ... if you don't think being abused as a child can lead to these things - you are eliminating one of the key issues in preventing more serial killers from developing ... your solution is just to keep killing them ... yet, these guys keep coming up ...

    it's like youth crime in toronto is down and if you ask the cops - it's because there was a reinvestment into after school programs for youth (which was decimated under a previous right wing gov't) ... you folks focus on your lust for justice but don't seem interested in preventing this from happening in the future ...
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,296
    polaris_x wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    If you start killing people with premeditation, yes .... unless it's the bastard who assaulted you. If you kill someone unrelated and use past abuse as your defense, you can go cry me a river.

    well ... that's that ... not much else to say to add to that ... i guess you don't have empathy for solidiers with ptsd either as soon as they commit violent acts ...
    If they murder an innocent person with premeditation, no, I do not.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Monster Rain
    Monster Rain Posts: 1,415
    Yes, it is possible that someone with a suspended license will drive. That person will also serve jail time for doing so and will either have their license suspended even longer or will have it suspended permanently. And while that person is in jail they will not be able to drive. My focus isn't on guarantees; my focus is on guarantees when it applies to the most violent criminals and those are the ones who commit premeditated murder. It seems like you want to try to trick me into thinking I have to support the death penalty for drunk driving in order to guarantee that it doesn't happen again, but I'm not that dumb.

    I'm not talking about just serial killers, although that was a nice attempt to change the appearance of the debate so that it favors your argument. I could counter that by saying that 100% of serial killers kill more than one person and then ask you how many drunk drivers are involved in multiple fatal accidents if that's the path you want to take.

    I don't agree with your assessment that we have violence because we have the death penalty. I would say that we have the death penalty because we have people willing to murder. It's not like we created the death penalty for no reason and then someone stepped up and said, "I'll go kill someone now in order to justify this strange new penalty!" Murder existed before the death penalty for committing murder.
    polaris_x wrote:
    Monster Rain wrote:
    You can rehabilitate an alcohol problem a lot easier than you can rehabilitate the willingness the murder. That's like comparing taking hostages during an armed bank robbery with shoplifting a Tootsie Pop. But if you really need to know how it works here in the US, drunk drivers have their licenses revoked. If they do it again after they get their license back, they have it taken away for an even longer period. If they are fortunate enough to get their license back and drive drunk a 3rd time, most states will revoke the license for no less than 3 years (some may revoke it permanently, but I'm not 100% sure about that). At that point, the only way to get a license after those 3 years are up is to attend AA or some other type of counseling. For all drunk driving offenses, there are large fines associated with the crime and there are large fees imposed in order to get the license back once the suspension has ended and there is often jail time served

    but that doesn't guarantee they don't drive ... not having a license doesn't prevent that same person to a) drink nor b) drive ... your focus was on guarantees ... i'm pretty sure more people die from drunk drivers than serial killers ...

    either way - i reiterate again ... it's about what kind of society you want to live in ... america = #1 in violent crime in developed countries ... i think there is a correlation ... i'm guessing you don't ...

Categories