|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 20:07:08 GMT -5
But higher in death penalty states or is that just one giant coincidence? Are you implying that people are more likely to commit a murder because they want to get put to death, as opposed to put in jail for life? I don't understand your angle here. What about all those "activists" who have lost a loved one and still oppose the death penalty? What about all those innocent people on death row that have been cleared of the charges after they've been killed? We kill innocent people. What do we do? Just say "oops" and hope it doesn't happen again? Putting an innocent person in jail for the rest of their life where they may be fearing for their life every day, beaten, (raped?), and contained like an animal isn't much better. You're arguing for a better judicial system, which you know I agree with... But the punishments (death penalty or life in prison) do fit the crimes for those who are guilty. I'm saying that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. People will still murder others even if they have the possibility that they will be killed for their crime. At least if they are in prison for life we can get them out if they are innocent. We can't get them out if they are executed. Which is why we should put them in a different wing of the prison. Now, I'm not saying put everyone there that claims they are innocent. Not people who have been convicted using DNA evidence and 10 eye witnesses and confessing to it (unless they were under duress). I know of this guy right now on death row who very well could be innocent. I've had many conversations with his wife and I'm not just going off of that to say he may be innocent. Here is his website. herbertjblakeney.synthasite.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 25, 2010 20:15:25 GMT -5
I'm saying that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. People will still murder others even if they have the possibility that they will be killed for their crime. I don't think its primary use is as a deterrent to crime. It's as a future, preventative measure to stop crime from those who have proven themselves to be unfit for the rest of society. At least if they are in prison for life we can get them out if they are innocent. We can't get them out if they are executed. Maybe? There's a real good chance that they never make it that far and spend the rest of their lives rotting away in a jail cell. Which is why we should put them in a different wing of the prison. So they can go insane from lack of human contact? I don't think that's very helpful, either. Now, I'm not saying put everyone there that claims they are innocent. Not people who have been convicted using DNA evidence and 10 eye witnesses and confessing to it (unless they were under duress). Again, the problem is the lack of guilt proven. Not the punishment. I know of this guy right now on death row who very well could be innocent. I'm sure there are plenty. And I'm sure there are plenty of GUILTY people who get off scot-free, as well. |
|
Blehschmidt
Main Eventer
Regal > You
Joined on: Mar 25, 2007 10:50:50 GMT -5
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by Blehschmidt on Sept 25, 2010 20:22:25 GMT -5
I can't believe this argument is even still going.
As a Virginia tax payer, I want to thank them for killing her, and I think they should kill the other two people involved in it.
Why? Because I go out every day and work my ass off, and the taxes they rape me for every paycheck are too cover these worthless pieces of human trash sitting in there jail cells with big screen televisions, and too pay for their three solid meals a day, there sleeping quarters and whatever amenities that criminals are getting that some contributing members of society dont even get.
Furthermore, I think that they should take whoever is next on the list in the death penalty for murder, and they should strap them in the electric chair. Then they should broadcast that execution on every CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and whatever other TV channels are available.
Maybe then the low life scum will take notice and say "Holy S**t, if I kill someone that is going to happen to me."
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 20:22:26 GMT -5
I'm saying that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. People will still murder others even if they have the possibility that they will be killed for their crime. I don't think its primary use is as a deterrent to crime. It's as a future, preventative measure to stop crime from those who have proven themselves to be unfit for the rest of society. Maybe? There's a real good chance that they never make it that far and spend the rest of their lives rotting away in a jail cell. So they can go insane from lack of human contact? I don't think that's very helpful, either. Again, the problem is the lack of guilt proven. Not the punishment. I know of this guy right now on death row who very well could be innocent. I'm sure there are plenty. And I'm sure there are plenty of GUILTY people who get off scot-free, as well. Yet millions of supporters of the death penalty champion it's deterrent factor even though they are wrong. Rather let them spend 30 years in prison and then be found innocent than spend 15 years on death row and be executed. Obviously there would be more than one prisoner on the wing, I'm sure there are several prisoners that the Innocence Project or Amnesty International would be willing to fight for, so they would not be alone. Plus, how do you think death row inmates feel being locked up for 23 hours a day? Got to drive them a little bit insane. Yes, I know guilty people go free all the time, but we must fight for the innocent that are found guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 20:25:47 GMT -5
I can't believe this argument is even still going. As a Virginia tax payer, I want to thank them for killing her, and I think they should kill the other two people involved in it. Why? Because I go out every day and work my ass off, and the taxes they rape me for every paycheck are too cover these worthless pieces of human trash sitting in there jail cells with big screen televisions, and too pay for their three solid meals a day, there sleeping quarters and whatever amenities that criminals are getting that some contributing members of society dont even get. Furthermore, I think that they should take whoever is next on the list in the death penalty for murder, and they should strap them in the electric chair. Then they should broadcast that execution on every CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and whatever other TV channels are available. Maybe then the low life scum will take notice and say "Holy S**t, if I kill someone that is going to happen to me." To kill a person it costs anywhere between $2.5 and 5 million dollars per person. For one year in prison, everything included, it costs about $30-40 thousand per person. You know how many years in prison someone would have to serve to equal the amount spent on one execution? |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 25, 2010 20:51:18 GMT -5
Yet millions of supporters of the death penalty champion it's deterrent factor even though they are wrong. Them being wrong about that fact is irrelevant to the point that it's there as a preventative measure for future crime by that individual. As a person who campaigns for individual freedom, I believe that anyone who takes the freedom of someone else by ending their life should be put to death themselves. Rather let them spend 30 years in prison and then be found innocent than spend 15 years on death row and be executed. Well yes I agree, but we're talking about a low percentage of people and the problem is not the punishment. The problem is the judiciary process. Obviously there would be more than one prisoner on the wing, I'm sure there are several prisoners that the Innocence Project or Amnesty International would be willing to fight for, so they would not be alone. Plus, how do you think death row inmates feel being locked up for 23 hours a day? Got to drive them a little bit insane. So we're talking about a "murderers" wing? How is that going to stop fights in prison? I don't understand what you're saying right now. I think keeping a Death Row inmate on lock up for 23 hours a day is completely cruel and unusual punishment. Yes, I know guilty people go free all the time, but we must fight for the innocent that are found guilty. Absolutely, which is why the judiciary process and the definition of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt needs to be taken literally. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 25, 2010 20:55:45 GMT -5
"My message is one of freedom and individual rights. I believe individuals have a right to life and liberty and that physical aggression should be used only defensively. We should respect each other as rational beings by trying to achieve our goals through reason and persuasion rather than threats and coercion." -- Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, 2008
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 21:06:40 GMT -5
Yet millions of supporters of the death penalty champion it's deterrent factor even though they are wrong. Them being wrong about that fact is irrelevant to the point that it's there as a preventative measure for future crime by that individual. As a person who campaigns for individual freedom, I believe that anyone who takes the freedom of someone else by ending their life should be put to death themselves. Well yes I agree, but we're talking about a low percentage of people and the problem is not the punishment. The problem is the judiciary process. So we're talking about a "murderers" wing? How is that going to stop fights in prison? I don't understand what you're saying right now. I think keeping a Death Row inmate on lock up for 23 hours a day is completely cruel and unusual punishment. Yes, I know guilty people go free all the time, but we must fight for the innocent that are found guilty. Absolutely, which is why the judiciary process and the definition of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt needs to be taken literally. I'm talking about a wing for people who actually have a case for being innocent, no matter the crime. If their lawyer has new evidence, a witness recants, doctor gets put on trial for pushing evidence on the cops that favor the suspect the cops are already looking at. (Not saying just because the doctor always sides with the cops they are doing any wrong, but if they are found to have manipulated findings so they'd fit nicely with the cop's case), things like that, then those people should be put in a different wing so they are taken out of a possibly more dangerous area. If these people are actually innocent, they are probably less violent, so there isn't a need to worry about those prisoners getting shanked or anything. There have been at least one promising study that show that when life without parole is an option to the death penalty, the jury is more likely to chose life without parole. And just because they are locked up 23 hours a day doesn't mean they won't kill or injure another prisoner while they are out for that one hour. So the death penalty does not ensure that the person will stop committing crimes. Yes, obviously after they are dead, it stops them, but that shouldn't be the argument for the death penalty. "We eventually kill them, so side with us." |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 21:09:18 GMT -5
"My message is one of freedom and individual rights. I believe individuals have a right to life and liberty and that physical aggression should be used only defensively. We should respect each other as rational beings by trying to achieve our goals through reason and persuasion rather than threats and coercion." -- Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, 2008 "Paul opposes the death penalty and would vote against it in “any legislative body he was a member of,” according to campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. In 2005, Paul praised the late Pope John Paul II for being an “eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty.”" |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 25, 2010 21:21:53 GMT -5
I don't have to agree with everything he says to agree with that part. I disagree with a lot of what he says, actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 25, 2010 21:26:44 GMT -5
I'm talking about a wing for people who actually have a case for being innocent, no matter the crime. If their lawyer has new evidence, a witness recants, doctor gets put on trial for pushing evidence on the cops that favor the suspect the cops are already looking at. (Not saying just because the doctor always sides with the cops they are doing any wrong, but if they are found to have manipulated findings so they'd fit nicely with the cop's case), things like that, then those people should be put in a different wing so they are taken out of a possibly more dangerous area. If these people are actually innocent, they are probably less violent, so there isn't a need to worry about those prisoners getting shanked or anything. Unfortunately, the people who determine "a case for being innocent" are the jury. We can't just leave it open for constant re-trials based on "new evidence" (most of which is preposterous). And just because they are locked up 23 hours a day doesn't mean they won't kill or injure another prisoner while they are out for that one hour. So the death penalty does not ensure that the person will stop committing crimes. Yes, obviously after they are dead, it stops them, but that shouldn't be the argument for the death penalty. "We eventually kill them, so side with us." Them being able to roam around with other prisoners for an hour and literally being "locked up" in a cell for 23 hours are different things. People on death row SHOULD be in solitary confinement 24/7. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Sept 25, 2010 21:28:19 GMT -5
Slappy, The looney bitch deserved to die, So just stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 22:01:06 GMT -5
I'm talking about a wing for people who actually have a case for being innocent, no matter the crime. If their lawyer has new evidence, a witness recants, doctor gets put on trial for pushing evidence on the cops that favor the suspect the cops are already looking at. (Not saying just because the doctor always sides with the cops they are doing any wrong, but if they are found to have manipulated findings so they'd fit nicely with the cop's case), things like that, then those people should be put in a different wing so they are taken out of a possibly more dangerous area. If these people are actually innocent, they are probably less violent, so there isn't a need to worry about those prisoners getting shanked or anything. Unfortunately, the people who determine "a case for being innocent" are the jury. We can't just leave it open for constant re-trials based on "new evidence" (most of which is preposterous). And just because they are locked up 23 hours a day doesn't mean they won't kill or injure another prisoner while they are out for that one hour. So the death penalty does not ensure that the person will stop committing crimes. Yes, obviously after they are dead, it stops them, but that shouldn't be the argument for the death penalty. "We eventually kill them, so side with us." Them being able to roam around with other prisoners for an hour and literally being "locked up" in a cell for 23 hours are different things. People on death row SHOULD be in solitary confinement 24/7. We shouldn't just scoff at new evidence. I am not saying a new trial every time a new piece of evidence is found. If there is new evidence it should be presented to the appeals court and they should review it. Simply just throwing the new evidence away is an awful way of doing things. I thought you just said that 23 hour a day lock ups are cruel and unusual punishment. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 22:01:29 GMT -5
Slappy, The looney bitch deserved to die, So just stop. I should stop because you disagree with me? |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Sept 25, 2010 22:10:15 GMT -5
Slappy, The looney bitch deserved to die, So just stop. I should stop because you disagree with me? Ok so you think its alright to pay someone to kill her own husband and child? |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 25, 2010 22:14:40 GMT -5
We shouldn't just scoff at new evidence. I am not saying a new trial every time a new piece of evidence is found. If there is new evidence it should be presented to the appeals court and they should review it. Simply just throwing the new evidence away is an awful way of doing things. In that case, I agree. If it passes through appeals court, then I'm good with putting them in their own area. Unfortunately, there's just not much of that going on, so it's hard to justify an entire wing for it. I thought you just said that 23 hour a day lock ups are cruel and unusual punishment. Solitary confinement (lockups) are with no one else around. I'm saying that death row inmates shouldn't have to be in a cell the entire day. They should still be allowed to do other things (go outside, work out, etc.), but not with others. make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 22:21:35 GMT -5
I should stop because you disagree with me? Ok so you think its alright to pay someone to kill her own husband and child? No, I don't think it is ok. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 22:26:01 GMT -5
We shouldn't just scoff at new evidence. I am not saying a new trial every time a new piece of evidence is found. If there is new evidence it should be presented to the appeals court and they should review it. Simply just throwing the new evidence away is an awful way of doing things. In that case, I agree. If it passes through appeals court, then I'm good with putting them in their own area. Unfortunately, there's just not much of that going on, so it's hard to justify an entire wing for it. I thought you just said that 23 hour a day lock ups are cruel and unusual punishment. Solitary confinement (lockups) are with no one else around. I'm saying that death row inmates shouldn't have to be in a cell the entire day. They should still be allowed to do other things (go outside, work out, etc.), but not with others. make sense? I understand that a whole wing is probably impossible. I can't really argue about solitary confinement. Yes, it makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Sept 25, 2010 22:39:59 GMT -5
Ok so you think its alright to pay someone to kill her own husband and child? No, I don't think it is ok. So why are you saying that she didnt deserve the death penalty |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 22:48:07 GMT -5
No, I don't think it is ok. So why are you saying that she didnt deserve the death penalty Because I think the death penalty is just plain wrong and it is cruel and unusual punishment. |
|
