Death penalty argument

[Syzygys]

Oh, the facts, those scrampy little things! How could i forget about them? So if a Japanese jury puts a Japanese criminal on the death row, you don't have a problem with it? After all, no race card played role.

For all practical purposes the DP is non-existent in the US, because less than 5 % of death verdicts are executed. So whipe your ass with your deterrent argument.

So Phlogo I take you are for the DP in other countries just not in the US. Welcome to the dark side!

I would like to point out that some of your "arguments" are also against the justice system as a whole (hey, justice actually costs money!!) so are you for freeing all prisoners?? I guess so....

 

[phlogistician]

Oh, the facts, those scrampy little things! How could i forget about them? So if a Japanese jury puts a Japanese criminal on the death row, you don't have a problem with it? After all, no race card played role.

I still have a problem with, just one less problem, obviously.

For all practical purposes the DP is non-existent in the US, because less than 5 % of death verdicts are executed. So whipe your ass with your deterrent argument.

But they all will be once the appeals are over.

So Phlogo I take you are for the DP in other countries just not in the US. Welcome to the dark side!

No, that would be fallacious to assume. I have never said, nor inferred anything of the sort, and the fact that you are haing to resort to such tactics shows dishonesty and desperation.

I would like to point out that some of your "arguments" are also against the justice system as a whole (hey, justice actually costs money!!) so are you for freeing all prisoners?? I guess so....

No, my arguments are made solely against the death penalty, and nowhere have I stated or implied that prisoners should be set free, again that's you abstracting to absurdity, and being dishonest.

 

[Norsefire]

One good advantage is that after executing the scum, we don't have to waste food, water, and supplies on them:shrug:

 

[Syzygys]

No, my arguments are made solely against the death penalty,

I understand your inability to see the aplicability. You see, if you bitch about cost, you should bitch about the high cost of keeping 2+ million Americans behind bars, quite a few of them innocently, shall I say?

Also, to imply that the richest nation on Earth can't afford a few million bucks just to achieve justice is just plain silly. let's say we save on the next unjust war by not doing it, we could use that extra money for all 3200 people on death row!!

Let me make another educated guess about you: I assume you don't have a problem of executing Kaspars Petrovs:

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

You see, this gentleman robbed AND murdered 13 to 38 elderly women in Riga. Since he is Latvian and was sentenced by Latvians, you can't play the racecard. In Latvia, it is cheaper to execute than hold him for 50 years, so you can't play the cheapness card either.

Oh, and he was so nice, he apologized to his victims' families also acknowledging the crimes...(so he is guilty) Since you didn't have argument against his execution, you must be FOR it!

Just off the top of my hat....

P.S.: Since you are so good at arguing, tell me:

What does the Latvian society gain by keeping this bastard for the next 50 years behind bars? He is only 30 right now, and I heard prisonfood is pretty decent in Latvia....

 

[(Q)]

It would be decades shaved off their life if they were wrongly imprisoned.

Again, there is no single good argument against the death penalty.

And if they were wrongfully executed?

I would suspect the list of wrongfully executed is short, but I was merely suggesting that if you personally lost a loved one due to having been wrongfully executed, you might have a single good argument against it.

 

[Norsefire]

And if they were wrongfully executed?

I would suspect the list of wrongfully executed is short, but I was merely suggesting that if you personally lost a loved one due to having been wrongfully executed, you might have a single good argument against it.

Or if you lost a loved one who died in surgery, or in construction. Do we stop surgeries or constructing buildings? No, we try to improve them, so we should be trying to improve the judicial system. It's not an argument against the penalty, but the judicial system.

 

[Syzygys]

And if they were wrongfully executed?

It is called tough shit. Just like when you spend decades in prison wrongfully convicted. Same difference, except you mind it LESS....

Anyway, I actually have found 1 good argument against the CP, and since Phlogo switched to the dark side, I will switch to the anti-CP side just for exercise sake. I like equilibrium!

Here is the argument (also called the Sadist's Logic):

CP is too good for certain criminals! I want them to suffer and being in prison for decades is way MORE suffering (or should be) than a quick execution! I would like also to introduce other punishments beside just doing time. Let's say daily tasering by the victim's family, waterboarding (the government seems to like it, so why shouldn't we?), flogging, hard labor, etc.

Anybody with me?? Phlogo?? Are you coming back to the sadist's side???

P.S.: Damn, I just realized, there is still a good counter argument against the Sadist's Logic, but I will let you guys discover it...

 

[Norsefire]

I'm with you; in fact I support the use of torture against criminals, followed by painful death.

 

[Syzygys]

Damn, you just presented the counter argument, which is, there is no reason to keep the criminal around, once he/she was tortured sufficiently...Unless someone wants to do it for life, which is a super-duper sadist argument and should be refered to a shrink...

 

[nietzschefan]

I'm with you; in fact I support the use of torture against criminals, followed by painful death.

Punishment.-- A strange thing, our kind of punishment! It does not cleanse the offender, it is no expiation: on the contrary, it defiles more than the offense itself.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 236, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Beware all those in whom the urge to punish is strong. ---- Nietzsche

You are sick.

 

[Eidolan]

I'm with you; in fact I support the use of torture against criminals, followed by painful death.

How willing are you to carry this out in front of other people?

 

[phlogistician]

I understand your inability to see the aplicability. You see, if you bitch about cost, you should bitch about the high cost of keeping 2+ million Americans behind bars, quite a few of them innocently, shall I say?

I'm not bitching about the cost, as it's not my tax dollars. I'm just pointing out that executions cost more than incarceration. I accept that we need jails, and that sometimes innocent people will get incarcerated, so stop stuffing that straw man!

Also, to imply that the richest nation on Earth can't afford a few million bucks just to achieve justice is just plain silly. let's say we save on the next unjust war by not doing it, we could use that extra money for all 3200 people on death row!!

If you believe that, go campaign for it. You live in a democracy, after all.

Let me make another educated guess about you: I assume you don't have a problem of executing Kaspars Petrovs:

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

I have a problem with the death penalty, period. So you haven't made an 'educated' guess at all. Quite clearly, you aren't reading what I write. The article you linked says he was sentenced to life in prison, and not execution. What was your point?

You haven't tackled my two other reservations. That miscarriages of justice do occur, and that the death penalty does not seem to be a deterrent.

But I also object on the level of basic humanity.

 

[Syzygys]

he was sentenced to life in prison, and not execution. What was your point?

The question was, why shouldn't he get the death penalty? Seriously, why? Unless you say that being in jail for 5 decades is a bigger punishment (although I could call it sadist) than a quick death, I don't see why would you want him to be around.

Now if we throw in my idea of obligatory organ donation, society would GAIN by his death, making a dozen people's lifes better.

You haven't tackled my two other reservations. That miscarriages of justice do occur,

Sure, but not in the above guy's case. So? Why is he still alive? Also I addressed this with the tough shit argument.*

So I take when there is no mistake about the criminal's guilt, you don't oppose the DP....

and that the death penalty does not seem to be a deterrent.

I addressed this already. There are ~3200 people in deathrow and the average annual executions are around 50-70. You do the math, but in my book that is around less than 3%.

But I am willing to try an experiment! Let's execute at least half of the death row inmates every year and see how that deter or not others!

The main point (and already posted in the thread) that for practical purposes the DP is non-existent in the US...So you can not use it as a sample for the deterring power of DP....

Let me throw in my other unanswered question (already asked 3 times): What does society gain by keeping people in jail for 3-4-5 decades?

* About tough shit happening: Yesterday a small plain flew into a home killing 4 people including 2 children. Earlier we were talking about accidents and modern transportation being similar as an accidental DP. I see no difference. You can get killed by both, beyond your way of avoiding it.

 

[phlogistician]

The question was, why shouldn't he get the death penalty?

Why are you asking me that question, when I am against the death penalty?

So I take when there is no mistake about the criminal's guilt, you don't oppose the DP....

Why do you keep doing this, making assumptions about what I think, when I have inferred nothing of the sort? No, I cannot support the death penalty in those cases, because that stance has issues. If you have a two tier system of guilt, and reserve death for cases where it is established beyond doubt the offender is guilty, you have to let all the other offenders go, because by your own admission, there is some doubt over their conviction, and therefore it is not right to imprison them! Do you get the ramafications? Do you understand them?

I addressed this already. There are ~3200 people in deathrow and the average annual executions are around 50-70. You do the math, but in my book that is around less than 3%.

All are scheduled to be executed. It's just a matter of when.

The main point (and already posted in the thread) that for practical purposes the DP is non-existent in the US...So you can not use it as a sample for the deterring power of DP....

You need an appeals process. You can't do away with it. That is why people languish on death row. The punishment is the same, it's just the timing that differs.

Let me throw in my other unanswered question (already asked 3 times): What does society gain by keeping people in jail for 3-4-5 decades?

It shows compassion. That's a mark of a civilised society.

 

[Norsefire]

Criminals are not civilized; we do not treat them with civility. They are barbarians, and will be treated as barbarians and animals.

 

[Syzygys]

Why are you asking me that question, when I am against the death penalty?

I thought you might have a good argument against this particular case, but it looks like you don't. And since none of your arguments applied to this case, that's why I asked. Basicly your argument comes down to:

"I don't like it." Which is fine, but not really a good argument.

No, I cannot support the death penalty in those cases, because that stance has issues.

I chose cases when your objections don't apply. Again, see above.

If you have a two tier system of guilt, and reserve death for cases where it is established beyond doubt the offender is guilty, you have to let all the other offenders go,

Not necessery. The evidence can be good for prison for life, but not good enough for DP. I don't have a problem with it...

All are scheduled to be executed. It's just a matter of when.

But seriously. Certain states haven't had an execution for a decade. half of the convicted will be dead before they could be executed. have you ever heard of justice delayed, justice denied??

By the way you never really addressed the justice issue. I would say a person killing more than 10 easily deserves DP.

It shows compassion. That's a mark of a civilised society.

I am all for compassion. For the sick, for the old, for the just. But not for criminals. Compassion my ass...

Interestingly, the green river killer didn't show compassion when he killed 50+ women , when they were begging for their lifes. Why the fuck should society show compassion?? By the way you wouldn't keep a dog puppy in cage for the rest of its life, what kind of silly argument it is that keeping a HUMAN BEING incarcerated for life is compasssion?? I think it is sadism....

Another religious argument: If they happen to be innocent, I am sure god will sort it out and make it good.

Also I could make the argument that the sign of a civilized society that it is JUST. Compassion comes in the form of that we don't kill them by horses tearing them into 4 parts, but giving them a sleepy injection.

 

[sly1]

I say.....hand over the convited criminal to the family of the victim and let them do as they wish......

 

[Norsefire]

I say.....hand over the convited criminal to the family of the victim and let them do as they wish......

This would also be a good idea; why not?

 

[Eidolan]

Criminals are not civilized; we do not treat them with civility. They are barbarians, and will be treated as barbarians and animals.

Actually, criminals are just like everyone else but tend to have a worse neurochemical condition that non-criminals. Anyone can be stimulated relatively easily into commiting horrible crimes.

 

[Norsefire]

Actually, criminals are just like everyone else but tend to have a worse neurochemical condition that non-criminals. Anyone can be stimulated relatively easily into commiting horrible crimes.

They are barbaric animals and deserve to be treated as such. I do not think of violent criminals as people.