I couldn't see authorities not taking all precautions to ensure Mushroom Head's safety in prison.
Prison officials likely don't want the aftermath of a high profile loser such as this dying in their custody.
Not that anyone would probably care. Dahmer didn't create much of a stir.
Either way, he needs to rot in solitary. Gen pop allows protection from gangs and other comforts they smuggle in.
Most cheered when Dahmer met his end.
Think of his situation: he's placed in a cell with a cell mate. The guy who killed him (his cell mate) likely thought he had no choice. Are you sleeping soundly at night with that freak in the same locked cell?
How do you figure most cheered? I also always think it's a sad display of the darker side of people when they stand outside a prison when someone is executed. I know it's not how Dahmer went, but it just made me think of that.
I agree. It's gruesome.
Some people are just happy that justice is served and show up to demonstrate their support for such justice as well as pay respect to the deceased. It's closure. Pure and simple.
It's tough for some to see it that way- especially if they concern themselves too much for a cannibal kid killer. They should try looking at it from a slightly more pragmatic approach vs a philosophical ideal.
Hahaha only Thirty would try to spin tailgating an execution into a pragmatic paying of respect to the deceased!
Hahaha like you spin looting and rioting part of an honourable display against a nation wide inherently corrupt and racist police force?
What I said isn't far fetched at all. Some of those intimately affected by horrific crimes need that type of closure, RG. You do know the majority of people want the DP right?
"a nationwide inherently corrupt and racist police force"? are you fucking kidding me?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I couldn't see authorities not taking all precautions to ensure Mushroom Head's safety in prison.
Prison officials likely don't want the aftermath of a high profile loser such as this dying in their custody.
Not that anyone would probably care. Dahmer didn't create much of a stir.
Either way, he needs to rot in solitary. Gen pop allows protection from gangs and other comforts they smuggle in.
Most cheered when Dahmer met his end.
Think of his situation: he's placed in a cell with a cell mate. The guy who killed him (his cell mate) likely thought he had no choice. Are you sleeping soundly at night with that freak in the same locked cell?
How do you figure most cheered? I also always think it's a sad display of the darker side of people when they stand outside a prison when someone is executed. I know it's not how Dahmer went, but it just made me think of that.
I agree. It's gruesome.
Some people are just happy that justice is served and show up to demonstrate their support for such justice as well as pay respect to the deceased. It's closure. Pure and simple.
It's tough for some to see it that way- especially if they concern themselves too much for a cannibal kid killer. They should try looking at it from a slightly more pragmatic approach vs a philosophical ideal.
some people just have a sick idea of what support for the justice system constitutes.
whether that meant you or not is up for you to decide.
Not a great try.
Public displays of support aren't only there for your schema, Hugh. They are there for all facets of life. The majority of people support the DP. If one can show up to a vigil... they can just as easily show up to an execution signifying the final chapter to an obscene story.
Way better than showing up to a parole hearing to protest the release of a heinous mutant every two years dontcha think?
I googled "death penalty in canada", hoping to come up with stats to back up 30's claim. I came across this. I read the entire thing. Does anything stand out to anyone else in the differences between those writing pro-DP and those writing against it?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I googled "death penalty in canada", hoping to come up with stats to back up 30's claim. I came across this. I read the entire thing. Does anything stand out to anyone else in the differences between those writing pro-DP and those writing against it?
I googled "death penalty in canada", hoping to come up with stats to back up 30's claim. I came across this. I read the entire thing. Does anything stand out to anyone else in the differences between those writing pro-DP and those writing against it?
yeah, I recalled that the amount of folks polled was higher than 50%, but couldn't recall the exact number. and that's fine. I can't argue with numbers (although the polling prior to the US election gives me pause). However, just because 15 people in a crowd are beating on a suspected criminal, and 1 other person is crying for them to stop, does that automatically make the 15 correct?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I personally am interested in the unsealing of Roof's competency hearing. I'm curious to hear more of his reasoning process than the snippets we've heard so far.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I perceived a very tangible difference in the style of writing.
Oh. Got it. Stupid people want the DP and smart people don't. Is that what you wanted to suggest? Let's look at a few:
From the proponent side:
— As a physician, it goes against all I believe in to endorse taking a human life. As a mother, however, I would have no trouble pulling the lever on the hangman’s trap door if anyone did to my sons what happened to Tori Stafford or Kirsten French or the victims of Russell Williams. The people who do these types of crime are not fixable — they need to be humanely “put down” for the good of society.
* Yup. Funny how people change their tune once directly impacted (such as Petit or in this current SC case- the reverend).
— In 1975, Alan Craig MacDonald murdered a Nova Scotia police officer and the taxi driver who witnessed the murder. MacDonald was convicted of both crimes, however after serving only 12 years of what was supposed to be a life sentence, he was released on parole. Six months later, he brutally murdered 21 year-old university student Lynda Shaw. If Macdonald was executed for his original crimes, Shaw would still be alive today.
* Well shucks. Deterrent argument is proven right again.
From the opponent side:
— Once someone dies, their soul is freed to be born again. Therefore, giving the death penalty to even the most-depraved of murderers is still the wrong thing to do. These defective examples of humanity should be locked up securely for as long as possible.
* lol
— The death penalty is society’s revenge to try to remove the guilt of failure — the failure to value the gift of life, the failure to respect the value of others, the failure of fellow humans to be a human. Keep in mind the Japanese proverb: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. Where do we dig and when do we stop?
I perceived a very tangible difference in the style of writing.
Oh. Got it. Stupid people want the DP and smart people don't. Is that what you wanted to suggest? Let's look at a few:
From the proponent side:
— As a physician, it goes against all I believe in to endorse taking a human life. As a mother, however, I would have no trouble pulling the lever on the hangman’s trap door if anyone did to my sons what happened to Tori Stafford or Kirsten French or the victims of Russell Williams. The people who do these types of crime are not fixable — they need to be humanely “put down” for the good of society.
* Yup. Funny how people change their tune once directly impacted (such as Petit or in this current SC case- the reverend).
— In 1975, Alan Craig MacDonald murdered a Nova Scotia police officer and the taxi driver who witnessed the murder. MacDonald was convicted of both crimes, however after serving only 12 years of what was supposed to be a life sentence, he was released on parole. Six months later, he brutally murdered 21 year-old university student Lynda Shaw. If Macdonald was executed for his original crimes, Shaw would still be alive today.
* Well shucks. Deterrent argument is proven right again.
From the opponent side:
— Once someone dies, their soul is freed to be born again. Therefore, giving the death penalty to even the most-depraved of murderers is still the wrong thing to do. These defective examples of humanity should be locked up securely for as long as possible.
* lol
— The death penalty is society’s revenge to try to remove the guilt of failure — the failure to value the gift of life, the failure to respect the value of others, the failure of fellow humans to be a human. Keep in mind the Japanese proverb: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. Where do we dig and when do we stop?
* Deep, man. Deep.
of course there were examples like that on both sides, as well as some intelligent examples on both sides, it just seemed to me, that an overwhelming majority of the comments on the pro-DP side, yes, sounded, well, not as well-read, let's say, as the anti-DP side. That could have been the way the comments were chosen as a bias from the editors, for sure, it was just an observation I made.
you can cherry pick comments to suppor your narrative all you want. I was speaking to the comments as a whole.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I perceived a very tangible difference in the style of writing.
Oh. Got it. Stupid people want the DP and smart people don't. Is that what you wanted to suggest? Let's look at a few:
From the proponent side:
— As a physician, it goes against all I believe in to endorse taking a human life. As a mother, however, I would have no trouble pulling the lever on the hangman’s trap door if anyone did to my sons what happened to Tori Stafford or Kirsten French or the victims of Russell Williams. The people who do these types of crime are not fixable — they need to be humanely “put down” for the good of society.
* Yup. Funny how people change their tune once directly impacted (such as Petit or in this current SC case- the reverend).
— In 1975, Alan Craig MacDonald murdered a Nova Scotia police officer and the taxi driver who witnessed the murder. MacDonald was convicted of both crimes, however after serving only 12 years of what was supposed to be a life sentence, he was released on parole. Six months later, he brutally murdered 21 year-old university student Lynda Shaw. If Macdonald was executed for his original crimes, Shaw would still be alive today.
* Well shucks. Deterrent argument is proven right again.
From the opponent side:
— Once someone dies, their soul is freed to be born again. Therefore, giving the death penalty to even the most-depraved of murderers is still the wrong thing to do. These defective examples of humanity should be locked up securely for as long as possible.
* lol
— The death penalty is society’s revenge to try to remove the guilt of failure — the failure to value the gift of life, the failure to respect the value of others, the failure of fellow humans to be a human. Keep in mind the Japanese proverb: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. Where do we dig and when do we stop?
* Deep, man. Deep.
of course there were examples like that on both sides, as well as some intelligent examples on both sides, it just seemed to me, that an overwhelming majority of the comments on the pro-DP side, yes, sounded, well, not as well-read, let's say, as the anti-DP side. That could have been the way the comments were chosen as a bias from the editors, for sure, it was just an observation I made.
you can cherry pick comments to suppor your narrative all you want. I was speaking to the comments as a whole.
I didn't need to cherry pick- the comments were as well-written on one side as they were with the other. Your problem was with content versus delivery and your bias shrouded your judgement.
Come on, man. Your argument hasn't boiled down to 'if you support the DP you are stupid' has it?
I perceived a very tangible difference in the style of writing.
Oh. Got it. Stupid people want the DP and smart people don't. Is that what you wanted to suggest? Let's look at a few:
From the proponent side:
— As a physician, it goes against all I believe in to endorse taking a human life. As a mother, however, I would have no trouble pulling the lever on the hangman’s trap door if anyone did to my sons what happened to Tori Stafford or Kirsten French or the victims of Russell Williams. The people who do these types of crime are not fixable — they need to be humanely “put down” for the good of society.
* Yup. Funny how people change their tune once directly impacted (such as Petit or in this current SC case- the reverend).
— In 1975, Alan Craig MacDonald murdered a Nova Scotia police officer and the taxi driver who witnessed the murder. MacDonald was convicted of both crimes, however after serving only 12 years of what was supposed to be a life sentence, he was released on parole. Six months later, he brutally murdered 21 year-old university student Lynda Shaw. If Macdonald was executed for his original crimes, Shaw would still be alive today.
* Well shucks. Deterrent argument is proven right again.
From the opponent side:
— Once someone dies, their soul is freed to be born again. Therefore, giving the death penalty to even the most-depraved of murderers is still the wrong thing to do. These defective examples of humanity should be locked up securely for as long as possible.
* lol
— The death penalty is society’s revenge to try to remove the guilt of failure — the failure to value the gift of life, the failure to respect the value of others, the failure of fellow humans to be a human. Keep in mind the Japanese proverb: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. Where do we dig and when do we stop?
* Deep, man. Deep.
of course there were examples like that on both sides, as well as some intelligent examples on both sides, it just seemed to me, that an overwhelming majority of the comments on the pro-DP side, yes, sounded, well, not as well-read, let's say, as the anti-DP side. That could have been the way the comments were chosen as a bias from the editors, for sure, it was just an observation I made.
you can cherry pick comments to suppor your narrative all you want. I was speaking to the comments as a whole.
I didn't need to cherry pick- the comments were as well-written on one side as they were with the other. Your problem was with content versus delivery and your bias shrouded your judgement.
Come on, man. Your argument hasn't boiled down to 'if you support the DP you are stupid' has it?
nope. it was a simple observation that I already admitted was possibly a bias on the count of the editors of that website. it wasn't a bias on my part at all. I thought all the comments were pro-DP, until I got to the lower section of opponents. that's when I noticed a difference in delivery. it stood out.
sure there's a stereotype that people who are pro-DP/pro-vengeance justice are of the less intelligent sort. no different than your stereotype of all trump supporters being slack jawed one-toothed yokels.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent. where the DP should be involved, as many proponents have stated, in extreme cases like serial murderers, pre meditated murders of children, etc, do you really think those types would have stopped to think about the consequences of their actions?
now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent. where the DP should be involved, as many proponents have stated, in extreme cases like serial murderers, pre meditated murders of children, etc, do you really think those types would have stopped to think about the consequences of their actions?
now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
It hasn't been a deterrent the way it is currently used. But, if instead of years of appeals, etc., the convicted was executed soon after conviction I believe it would work.
Also...in cases of serial murderers and the like the DP turns more into a victims rights argument. I would want to see that fucker die.
Post edited by Gern Blansten on
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I perceived a very tangible difference in the style of writing.
Oh. Got it. Stupid people want the DP and smart people don't. Is that what you wanted to suggest? Let's look at a few:
From the proponent side:
— As a physician, it goes against all I believe in to endorse taking a human life. As a mother, however, I would have no trouble pulling the lever on the hangman’s trap door if anyone did to my sons what happened to Tori Stafford or Kirsten French or the victims of Russell Williams. The people who do these types of crime are not fixable — they need to be humanely “put down” for the good of society.
* Yup. Funny how people change their tune once directly impacted (such as Petit or in this current SC case- the reverend).
— In 1975, Alan Craig MacDonald murdered a Nova Scotia police officer and the taxi driver who witnessed the murder. MacDonald was convicted of both crimes, however after serving only 12 years of what was supposed to be a life sentence, he was released on parole. Six months later, he brutally murdered 21 year-old university student Lynda Shaw. If Macdonald was executed for his original crimes, Shaw would still be alive today.
* Well shucks. Deterrent argument is proven right again.
From the opponent side:
— Once someone dies, their soul is freed to be born again. Therefore, giving the death penalty to even the most-depraved of murderers is still the wrong thing to do. These defective examples of humanity should be locked up securely for as long as possible.
* lol
— The death penalty is society’s revenge to try to remove the guilt of failure — the failure to value the gift of life, the failure to respect the value of others, the failure of fellow humans to be a human. Keep in mind the Japanese proverb: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. Where do we dig and when do we stop?
* Deep, man. Deep.
of course there were examples like that on both sides, as well as some intelligent examples on both sides, it just seemed to me, that an overwhelming majority of the comments on the pro-DP side, yes, sounded, well, not as well-read, let's say, as the anti-DP side. That could have been the way the comments were chosen as a bias from the editors, for sure, it was just an observation I made.
you can cherry pick comments to suppor your narrative all you want. I was speaking to the comments as a whole.
I didn't need to cherry pick- the comments were as well-written on one side as they were with the other. Your problem was with content versus delivery and your bias shrouded your judgement.
Come on, man. Your argument hasn't boiled down to 'if you support the DP you are stupid' has it?
nope. it was a simple observation that I already admitted was possibly a bias on the count of the editors of that website. it wasn't a bias on my part at all. I thought all the comments were pro-DP, until I got to the lower section of opponents. that's when I noticed a difference in delivery. it stood out.
sure there's a stereotype that people who are pro-DP/pro-vengeance justice are of the less intelligent sort. no different than your stereotype of all trump supporters being slack jawed one-toothed yokels.
I thought my stereotype of Trump supporters was more or less fact lol!
For ease of understanding... let's keep context the same when making comparisons to stereotypes, okay?
Proponents: dummies with hatred in their hearts typically listening to Hank Williams Jr and very angry. Capitalists too.
Opponents: unshowered, wearing Birkenstocks, driving VW vans, and singing of love in a beatnik manner with their friends that have figured life out better than anyone.
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent. where the DP should be involved, as many proponents have stated, in extreme cases like serial murderers, pre meditated murders of children, etc, do you really think those types would have stopped to think about the consequences of their actions?
now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
No.
It's never been proven time and again it's not a deterrent. If it was employed in more than 0.0006 percent of all muder cases... we could definitively state- one way or another- whether it served as a deterrent or not.
I'm not inclined to test the idea, but as JeffBR consistently asserts, in one regard... it does serve as a deterrent given the killer can't kill again (just like in that example pointed out to you three posts or so ago... and many other times I might add).
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent. where the DP should be involved, as many proponents have stated, in extreme cases like serial murderers, pre meditated murders of children, etc, do you really think those types would have stopped to think about the consequences of their actions?
now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
No.
It's never been proven time and again it's not a deterrent. If it was employed in more than 0.0006 percent of all muder cases... we could definitively state- one way or another- whether it served as a deterrent or not.
I'm not inclined to test the idea, but as JeffBR consistently asserts, in one regard... it does serve as a deterrent given the killer can't kill again (just like in that example pointed out to you three posts or so ago... and many other times I might add).
that's not a deterrent. that's prevention.
de·ter·rent dəˈtərənt/ noun 1. a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something. synonyms: disincentive, discouragement, damper, curb, check, restraint; More adjective 1. able or intended to deter. "the deterrent effect of heavy prison sentences"
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent. where the DP should be involved, as many proponents have stated, in extreme cases like serial murderers, pre meditated murders of children, etc, do you really think those types would have stopped to think about the consequences of their actions?
now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
No.
It's never been proven time and again it's not a deterrent. If it was employed in more than 0.0006 percent of all muder cases... we could definitively state- one way or another- whether it served as a deterrent or not.
I'm not inclined to test the idea, but as JeffBR consistently asserts, in one regard... it does serve as a deterrent given the killer can't kill again (just like in that example pointed out to you three posts or so ago... and many other times I might add).
that's not a deterrent. that's prevention.
de·ter·rent dəˈtərənt/ noun 1. a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something. synonyms: disincentive, discouragement, damper, curb, check, restraint; More adjective 1. able or intended to deter. "the deterrent effect of heavy prison sentences"
find me any 2 studies that experts agree, with stats to back it up, that murder rates would decrease if the DP were in effect.
The entire point is moot.
We could never actually state one way or another whether the DP is a deterrent or not given its current and historical application. I only countered what you suggested stating that you cannot declare 'it is proven to not be a deterrent '. Such a statement is inaccurate.
I wish to clarify that my position doesn't stem from a deterrent standpoint.
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent. where the DP should be involved, as many proponents have stated, in extreme cases like serial murderers, pre meditated murders of children, etc, do you really think those types would have stopped to think about the consequences of their actions?
now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
No.
It's never been proven time and again it's not a deterrent. If it was employed in more than 0.0006 percent of all muder cases... we could definitively state- one way or another- whether it served as a deterrent or not.
I'm not inclined to test the idea, but as JeffBR consistently asserts, in one regard... it does serve as a deterrent given the killer can't kill again (just like in that example pointed out to you three posts or so ago... and many other times I might add).
that's not a deterrent. that's prevention.
de·ter·rent dəˈtərənt/ noun 1. a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something. synonyms: disincentive, discouragement, damper, curb, check, restraint; More adjective 1. able or intended to deter. "the deterrent effect of heavy prison sentences"
find me any 2 studies that experts agree, with stats to back it up, that murder rates would decrease if the DP were in effect.
The entire point is moot.
We could never actually state one way or another whether the DP is a deterrent or not given its current and historical application. I only countered what you suggested stating that you cannot declare 'it is proven to not be a deterrent '. Such a statement is inaccurate.
I wish to clarify that my position doesn't stem from a deterrent standpoint.
neither does mine.
so the overwhelming majority of experts in the field suggest it is not a detterent, and the entire point is moot to you?
not only that: look at these statistics: indisputable proof. the murder rate in states WITH the death penalty is HIGHER. and has been every year since 1990.
so then, how should it be applied, if it has been done the wrong way "currently and historically"? what is the right way for the state to kill a citizen?
I believe, also, you have made the "deterrent" argument often. Not as your main argument, no, but you have. but now you are backing away from that. why?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent. where the DP should be involved, as many proponents have stated, in extreme cases like serial murderers, pre meditated murders of children, etc, do you really think those types would have stopped to think about the consequences of their actions?
now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
No.
It's never been proven time and again it's not a deterrent. If it was employed in more than 0.0006 percent of all muder cases... we could definitively state- one way or another- whether it served as a deterrent or not.
I'm not inclined to test the idea, but as JeffBR consistently asserts, in one regard... it does serve as a deterrent given the killer can't kill again (just like in that example pointed out to you three posts or so ago... and many other times I might add).
that's not a deterrent. that's prevention.
de·ter·rent dəˈtərənt/ noun 1. a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something. synonyms: disincentive, discouragement, damper, curb, check, restraint; More adjective 1. able or intended to deter. "the deterrent effect of heavy prison sentences"
find me any 2 studies that experts agree, with stats to back it up, that murder rates would decrease if the DP were in effect.
The entire point is moot.
We could never actually state one way or another whether the DP is a deterrent or not given its current and historical application. I only countered what you suggested stating that you cannot declare 'it is proven to not be a deterrent '. Such a statement is inaccurate.
I wish to clarify that my position doesn't stem from a deterrent standpoint.
neither does mine.
so the overwhelming majority of experts in the field suggest it is not a detterent, and the entire point is moot to you?
not only that: look at these statistics: indisputable proof. the murder rate in states WITH the death penalty is HIGHER. and has been every year since 1990.
Well I guess if you ignore all other variables you can come to any conclusion you like, Hugh.
I've reviewed all those studies and they are all flawed given the testing parameters cannot possibly yield definitive results. Objective scholars all concede what I've tried to impress upon you, however... just as you preferred to view the pro comments in that piece you submitted as inferior to the anti comments given their content... you're choosing to do the same here.
You are trying to pass unfounded speculation and theory as fact.
so then, how should it be applied, if it has been done the wrong way "currently and historically"? what is the right way for the state to kill a citizen?
I believe, also, you have made the "deterrent" argument often. Not as your main argument, no, but you have. but now you are backing away from that. why?
No. You are wrong and again... you're just casually tossing stuff out there to discredit. I have consistently stressed the point is moot.
My arguments typically come from the victims corner (their rights).
so then, how should it be applied, if it has been done the wrong way "currently and historically"? what is the right way for the state to kill a citizen?
I believe, also, you have made the "deterrent" argument often. Not as your main argument, no, but you have. but now you are backing away from that. why?
And synapse is not really happening here.
Very simply: it's impossible to tell whether the DP would serve as a deterrent or not when it is used so infrequently (0.006 percent of all muder cases... or something like that).
If one wanted to firmly establish its effectiveness, or lack thereof, one would need to measure results after a lengthy duration of time with consistent administration of the penalty for most, if not all, offences. I'm obviously not advocating for this.
The point is moot. Don't let that stop you from speculating though.
Again, the DP certainly deters the asshole who was convicted from ever perpetrating another crime against a person. So that is good enough for me. But as Thirty states, being a deterrent isn't the reason for my support in most cases. I also agree with Gern's conditional support of the DP, except for his one condition that the defendant pleads guilty. But if there is overwhelming physical evidence (not a case built on circumstantial evidence) and a confession, then it is a no-brainer for me.
The other benefit of having the DP on the table is that often the DP is used as leverage to get the asshole to plea bargain to a life without parole punishment in exchange for foregoing a lengthy, emotionally painful (for the victims' families) trial, or in exchange for helping victims' families get closure by recovering bodies. If there were no DP, then there's no leverage to get the dirtbag to offer a plea, unless you're then allowing him to plea to lesser charges or sentences. Of course this leverage can only exist if the DP is actually occasionally carried out. So while I'm uneasy and uncomfortable with the DP, it has a purpose, and a real benefit to society if used sparingly and only in cases where there is absolutely zero doubt about guilt.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Again, the DP certainly deters the asshole who was convicted from ever perpetrating another crime against a person. So that is good enough for me. But as Thirty states, being a deterrent isn't the reason for my support in most cases. I also agree with Gern's conditional support of the DP, except for his one condition that the defendant pleads guilty. But if there is overwhelming physical evidence (not a case built on circumstantial evidence) and a confession, then it is a no-brainer for me.
The other benefit of having the DP on the table is that often the DP is used as leverage to get the asshole to plea bargain to a life without parole punishment in exchange for foregoing a lengthy, emotionally painful (for the victims' families) trial, or in exchange for helping victims' families get closure by recovering bodies. If there were no DP, then there's no leverage to get the dirtbag to offer a plea, unless you're then allowing him to plea to lesser charges or sentences. Of course this leverage can only exist if the DP is actually occasionally carried out. So while I'm uneasy and uncomfortable with the DP, it has a purpose, and a real benefit to society if used sparingly and only in cases where there is absolutely zero doubt about guilt.
Actually I said "or there is direct indisputable evidence"....which is kind of hard to describe but I'm picturing a case like Aaron Hernandez where he didn't plead guilty but there was security camera footage of him with the gun, etc.
To me there is a clear line between cases like that and a case like the West Memphis Three where (even though there was a confession) where there was absolutely no direct evidence at all.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Again, the DP certainly deters the asshole who was convicted from ever perpetrating another crime against a person. So that is good enough for me. But as Thirty states, being a deterrent isn't the reason for my support in most cases. I also agree with Gern's conditional support of the DP, except for his one condition that the defendant pleads guilty. But if there is overwhelming physical evidence (not a case built on circumstantial evidence) and a confession, then it is a no-brainer for me.
The other benefit of having the DP on the table is that often the DP is used as leverage to get the asshole to plea bargain to a life without parole punishment in exchange for foregoing a lengthy, emotionally painful (for the victims' families) trial, or in exchange for helping victims' families get closure by recovering bodies. If there were no DP, then there's no leverage to get the dirtbag to offer a plea, unless you're then allowing him to plea to lesser charges or sentences. Of course this leverage can only exist if the DP is actually occasionally carried out. So while I'm uneasy and uncomfortable with the DP, it has a purpose, and a real benefit to society if used sparingly and only in cases where there is absolutely zero doubt about guilt.
Actually I said "or there is direct indisputable evidence"....which is kind of hard to describe but I'm picturing a case like Aaron Hernandez where he didn't plead guilty but there was security camera footage of him with the gun, etc.
To me there is a clear line between cases like that and a case like the West Memphis Three where (even though there was a confession) where there was absolutely no direct evidence at all.
Completely agree, and I am opposed to the DP being used in cases that were built on circumstantial evidence. The West Memphis Three case is a good example of the danger of a broad application of the DP. It should only be used for cases meeting very specific and stringent requirements like those you listed.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.
So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
What is the matter with you Thirty? AGAIN you act like we care about killers, despite how many times we've so clearly explained that that is not the case.
I said for some. Whether that meant you or not is up for you to decide.
I thought when we went over this last time... I explained to you exactly some of the comments that were made in this forum where people ACTUALLY DO CARE about killers (remember the "it would be far worse to await execution than be the victim of a murder" statement made, supported, and argued?).
And even with that said... if you do lament a child killer's execution for his crimes... you do care at least a little. To this... you've actually never clearly explained. Not at all.
Actually, yes I have very clearly explained to you that that is not the case, not even a little, several times, and it also explained by every single argument I have ever made against the DP in any case. I'm not going to bother doing it again.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
-EV 8/14/93
Public displays of support aren't only there for your schema, Hugh. They are there for all facets of life. The majority of people support the DP. If one can show up to a vigil... they can just as easily show up to an execution signifying the final chapter to an obscene story.
Way better than showing up to a parole hearing to protest the release of a heinous mutant every two years dontcha think?
-EV 8/14/93
Was it this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/07/09/death-penalty-canada_n_10908940.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/should-canada-bring-back-the-death-penalty
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
From the proponent side:
— As a physician, it goes against all I believe in to endorse taking a human life. As a mother, however, I would have no trouble pulling the lever on the hangman’s trap door if anyone did to my sons what happened to Tori Stafford or Kirsten French or the victims of Russell Williams. The people who do these types of crime are not fixable — they need to be humanely “put down” for the good of society.
* Yup. Funny how people change their tune once directly impacted (such as Petit or in this current SC case- the reverend).
— In 1975, Alan Craig MacDonald murdered a Nova Scotia police officer and the taxi driver who witnessed the murder. MacDonald was convicted of both crimes, however after serving only 12 years of what was supposed to be a life sentence, he was released on parole. Six months later, he brutally murdered 21 year-old university student Lynda Shaw. If Macdonald was executed for his original crimes, Shaw would still be alive today.
* Well shucks. Deterrent argument is proven right again.
From the opponent side:
— Once someone dies, their soul is freed to be born again. Therefore, giving the death penalty to even the most-depraved of murderers is still the wrong thing to do. These defective examples of humanity should be locked up securely for as long as possible.
* lol
— The death penalty is society’s revenge to try to remove the guilt of failure — the failure to value the gift of life, the failure to respect the value of others, the failure of fellow humans to be a human. Keep in mind the Japanese proverb: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. Where do we dig and when do we stop?
* Deep, man. Deep.
you can cherry pick comments to suppor your narrative all you want. I was speaking to the comments as a whole.
-EV 8/14/93
Come on, man. Your argument hasn't boiled down to 'if you support the DP you are stupid' has it?
sure there's a stereotype that people who are pro-DP/pro-
vengeancejustice are of the less intelligent sort. no different than your stereotype of all trump supporters being slack jawed one-toothed yokels.-EV 8/14/93
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
-EV 8/14/93
Also...in cases of serial murderers and the like the DP turns more into a victims rights argument. I would want to see that fucker die.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
For ease of understanding... let's keep context the same when making comparisons to stereotypes, okay?
Proponents: dummies with hatred in their hearts typically listening to Hank Williams Jr and very angry. Capitalists too.
Opponents: unshowered, wearing Birkenstocks, driving VW vans, and singing of love in a beatnik manner with their friends that have figured life out better than anyone.
It's never been proven time and again it's not a deterrent. If it was employed in more than 0.0006 percent of all muder cases... we could definitively state- one way or another- whether it served as a deterrent or not.
I'm not inclined to test the idea, but as JeffBR consistently asserts, in one regard... it does serve as a deterrent given the killer can't kill again (just like in that example pointed out to you three posts or so ago... and many other times I might add).
de·ter·rent
dəˈtərənt/
noun
1.
a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.
synonyms: disincentive, discouragement, damper, curb, check, restraint; More
adjective
1.
able or intended to deter.
"the deterrent effect of heavy prison sentences"
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/2200
now here is a "the DP is a detterent" article that states no actual facts, just suppositions
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1a.htm
find me any 2 studies that experts agree, with stats to back it up, that murder rates would decrease if the DP were in effect.
-EV 8/14/93
We could never actually state one way or another whether the DP is a deterrent or not given its current and historical application. I only countered what you suggested stating that you cannot declare 'it is proven to not be a deterrent '. Such a statement is inaccurate.
I wish to clarify that my position doesn't stem from a deterrent standpoint.
so the overwhelming majority of experts in the field suggest it is not a detterent, and the entire point is moot to you?
not only that: look at these statistics: indisputable proof. the murder rate in states WITH the death penalty is HIGHER. and has been every year since 1990.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
but that's all because of the application of it.
sure.
-EV 8/14/93
I believe, also, you have made the "deterrent" argument often. Not as your main argument, no, but you have. but now you are backing away from that. why?
-EV 8/14/93
I've reviewed all those studies and they are all flawed given the testing parameters cannot possibly yield definitive results. Objective scholars all concede what I've tried to impress upon you, however... just as you preferred to view the pro comments in that piece you submitted as inferior to the anti comments given their content... you're choosing to do the same here.
You are trying to pass unfounded speculation and theory as fact.
My arguments typically come from the victims corner (their rights).
Very simply: it's impossible to tell whether the DP would serve as a deterrent or not when it is used so infrequently (0.006 percent of all muder cases... or something like that).
If one wanted to firmly establish its effectiveness, or lack thereof, one would need to measure results after a lengthy duration of time with consistent administration of the penalty for most, if not all, offences. I'm obviously not advocating for this.
The point is moot. Don't let that stop you from speculating though.
The other benefit of having the DP on the table is that often the DP is used as leverage to get the asshole to plea bargain to a life without parole punishment in exchange for foregoing a lengthy, emotionally painful (for the victims' families) trial, or in exchange for helping victims' families get closure by recovering bodies. If there were no DP, then there's no leverage to get the dirtbag to offer a plea, unless you're then allowing him to plea to lesser charges or sentences. Of course this leverage can only exist if the DP is actually occasionally carried out. So while I'm uneasy and uncomfortable with the DP, it has a purpose, and a real benefit to society if used sparingly and only in cases where there is absolutely zero doubt about guilt.
To me there is a clear line between cases like that and a case like the West Memphis Three where (even though there was a confession) where there was absolutely no direct evidence at all.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.