The Death Penalty

JonnyPistachio wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Considering this discussion, it really also just seems a lot easier to not have the death penalty. Cheaper too, unless they get rid of the appeals process.... which is probably not a good idea. Even though there are some who consider the "cruel and unusual punishment" to be in that very process.... dragging it out for years and years is the cruel and unusual part, not the actual strapping them down and murdering them. Some think that it wouldn't be cruel and unusual if they only had one trial, then wham bam, a week later the needle is inserted.... I obviously do not agree with this line of thinking either.

When people bring up the idea that the DP gives the victims families a sense of closure or whatever, I always think of this... It is dragged out - way too much. I think it takes an average of like 20-25 years to execute...so these families of victims will have a constant reminder for 2-3 decades with appeals and shit. For this reason, I would think it doesnt give much solace. Personally, I'd either like to kill 'em myself, or forget about it as soon as possible if I was the victims family.

pdalowsky wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I do understand what's going on here, but thanks. As I said, all things are not equal. That's why one is acceptable and one is not, and what is annoying is that both of you know this but are acting like it's a valid argument.

Hold on a second...

You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?

Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?

They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.

Excellent point and as always well made. The parallels were there to see and some felt it necessary to be derisory to this plain as day logic.

And to the point that putting a needle in an arm of a monster makes us worse?? WORSE -??? That comment is so bizarrely poor I can't even start to work out the logic that brought it to being typed. Society doesn't seek to murder those people in a deranged way that they inflicted themselves - and that's the only way such events could be truely considered like for like.

Believe me - I'm anti DP. But some of the comments in the last few pages have just beggared belief

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Hold on a second...

You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?

Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?

They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.

it's a clever comparison, but in the end, one that doesn't hold any water at all. We are not sinking to the level of the kidnapper; in essence, we are making sure, at the very least, that no one else gets kidnapped. That is our duty to the rest of society.

Killing someone who can do no more harm to society is not necessary.

Incarceration is all that is necessary to keep the public safe, whether it be kidnapping or murder.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Hold on a second...

You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?

Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?

They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.

it's a clever comparison, but in the end, one that doesn't hold any water at all. We are not sinking to the level of the kidnapper; in essence, we are making sure, at the very least, that no one else gets kidnapped. That is our duty to the rest of society.

Killing someone who can do no more harm to society is not necessary.

Incarceration is all that is necessary to keep the public safe, whether it be kidnapping or murder.

In many cases, executions could have prevented more harm to society so... to argue that it isn't 'necessary' isn't exactly true. Prison and time spent after a sentence or on parole offers murderers more chances to commit the acts we have supposedly safeguarded against.

I offer this to verify what I say:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/29 ... t-wouldnt/

So, as much as one could argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent before a murder is committed... one could certainly state that it acts as a deterrent by permanently removing the homicidal maniac from future opportunity.

Sounds cold, but nobody places a gun to some guy's head and demands that they commit a murder. Don't wish to get executed? Then don't go and kill people. And if you simply cannot resist your homicidal urges... then you must be prepared to accept your fate. One shouldn't plead for mercy when they couldn't tender any themselves as they preyed on an innocent.

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

In many cases, executions could have prevented more harm to society so... to argue that it isn't 'necessary' isn't exactly true. Prison and time spent after a sentence or on parole offers murderers more chances to commit the acts we have supposedly safeguarded against.

I offer this to verify what I say:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/29 ... t-wouldnt/

So, as much as one could argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent before a murder is committed... one could certainly state that it acts as a deterrent by permanently removing the homicidal maniac from future opportunity.

Sounds cold, but nobody places a gun to some guy's head and demands that they commit a murder. Don't wish to get executed? Then don't go and kill people. And if you simply cannot resist your homicidal urges... then you must be prepared to accept your fate. One shouldn't plead for mercy when they couldn't tender any themselves as they preyed on an innocent.

Anyone who would be on death row would be in max security American prisons. They wouldn't have an opportunity to do that. I don't know if citing a Canadian case where there is no death penalty and no kind of max security prison like they have in the US is a fair example, especially given Canada's current issues with that kind of thing. This could never have happened in the US I bet, which is what we're discussing here.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Two things:

The link I provided for you detailed a serial murderer that killed his cell mate in prison. His cell mate was doing the same time as the serial murderer- even though his crime was assault (hardly multiple murders). If the serial killer had been executed for his first wave of murders, there would be one less victim to his list. A joke of a sentence, idiots suggesting he was on the mend and suitable for a medium security prison, and a dangerous homicidal man permitted to live led to a death. At least in this case, society was negligent to properly deal with the vile man and his obscenities

Secondly. I'm not saying that the death penalty is a prominent deterrent. You are correct when you suggest that is is unlikely to stop someone hell bent on murdering someone. But it would be completely unreasonable to suggest that the death penalty would not prevent even one murder because someone thought better given they would die as a result. It is completely within the spectrum of possibilities and if it was possible to know that it was your daughter that was saved, Hugh... you would be grateful for the death penalty. Impossible to tell who may have been spared or were spared as a result of the impending death sentence attached to a potential crime, we'll just have to feel good for whoever it may have served or would serve.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Two things:

The link I provided for you detailed a serial murderer that killed his cell mate in prison. His cell mate was doing the same time as the serial murderer- even though his crime was assault (hardly multiple murders). If the serial killer had been executed for his first wave of murders, there would be one less victim to his list. A joke of a sentence, idiots suggesting he was on the mend and suitable for a medium security prison, and a dangerous homicidal man permitted to live led to a death. At least in this case, society was negligent to properly deal with the vile man and his obscenities

Secondly. I'm not saying that the death penalty is a prominent deterrent. You are correct when you suggest that is is unlikely to stop someone hell bent on murdering someone. But it would be completely unreasonable to suggest that the death penalty would not prevent even one murder because someone thought better given they would die as a result. It is completely within the spectrum of possibilities and if it was possible to know that it was your daughter that was saved, Hugh... you would be grateful for the death penalty. Impossible to tell who may have been spared or were spared as a result of the impending death sentence attached to a potential crime, we'll just have to feel good for whoever it may have served or would serve.

I will admit that portions of my argument have its flaws in that it requires some of the current judicial policies to change, but have yet to, and may never:

-I don't believe a serial murderer should be put in a cell with ANYONE, much less someone else of much lesser "crime stature", if you will. Solitary confinement? No. But a cellmate? Also no.

-I don't believe anyone who commits a premeditated murder deserves freedom. EVER. I don't give a flying fuck if they've reformed or found Jesus, Waldo, or pray to Gumby. You're DONE.

Look, I can't morally back the death penalty. But I can't say I wouldn't watch a real live version of The Running Man if it were to ever be developed by Fox. And it better have Richard Dawson as the host.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I'd be okay with those conditions- they are a hell of a lot better than what he currently have in place- but the main reason I advocate for the death penalty, once again, is to offer the victims and their survivors a level of justice that meets the crime.

My buddy and I have had this go around several times. He is opposed to the death penalty. His suggestion is to drop murderers off on an island like the Ray Liotta movie, No Escape. I'd be okay with this suggestion as well. Let the murderers sort it out amongst themselves.

How ironic. I was just thinking the same thing. Although, the British used to do that....and now we have Australia.