Finally a honest guy on death row

[Syzygys]

Asguard, let me take a wild guess, you never learnt in high school how to build a logical argument. Correct?

one raven you might find that the reason no one has answered is that there ISNT a good reason for CP.

Quite to the contraray, there are so many reasons that we can't even list them.

ALOT on death row have been found to be innocent (mostly after there excutions)

"A lot" is relative my dear. Can you quote relative numbers as in %??? For you maybe 3 is a lot, for me it is less than 0.4%.

But here, using your not so good logic, "a lot" of those innocents were guilty of other crimes...

It doesnt deter people from commiting offences (as shown by the higher rates of capital offences in DP countries)

Never argue against a point what wasn't stated. Once I say it is a deterrent, you can argue against it.

It is symply blood lust (look at norsefires responce)

This is not much of an argument than me saying :anti-CPers are pussies, even if it si true.

It doesnt provide any sort of releif for the victoms families (i will try to find the comments by the former australian magistrate whos son was killed in the bali bombings latter)

Really? For your 1 (repeat one) example I can show 5 counter examples where it WAS a relief. Now I already demonstrated earlier that you have no idea about relative and absolute numbers, so don't make statistics out of one sample...

Otherwise my little sadist friend, have you adopted the puppy?

 

[Syzygys]

Somehow I missed this post earlier, so let's have at it. Oh by the way, just for the record I would execute Charles Manson, even if he hasn't killed anyone personally.

The way I look at it, if it is revenge, it is a poor example of it.

Judging it poor is an opinion, not an argument. maybe it is poor for you, maybe it is statisfying for lots of others.

If someone killed your son, killing that person does not cause him the same suffering at all - what would fit better would be something more along the lines of killing someone the killer loves.

Not really, what if the killer doesn't like anyone? But since you brought it up, I am all for torture, the sadist I am (just for the sake of the thread).
By the way wrong analogy, the criminal should get (minimum) exactly the same treatment what he did. Not more, but no fucking less. This one argument went all wrong, my friend. We are retributing for the victim, not for the victim's family. clear now?

Ruining his life perhaps - wouldn't life in prison be a better means to that end than death?

Oh, the sadist argument! As I said, I am all for torture. But why not torture the guy a little, then execute? Wouldn't it save on resources???

If it is retribution, what reward are you getting from killing this person?

Statisfaction that justice has been served. Simple enough.

Do you get a measure of joy from people dying? Are you not the same as the killer, then?

No. Because "we didn't start the fire". Also, criminals have the right to do wrong, but society doesn't have the right to protect or correct it?

Retribution for the loved ones of the victim perhaps?

Already dealt with it above, wrong way Corrigan.

There is no one to offer retribution to.

For the last time Mr. Corrigan, it is for the victim, not for the family!!!!

The only possible argument I could see for capital punishment is simply ...

..the best one is if you ask me: no dead man killed again.

they just look at the results of the problem and want them to go away.

I agree!! Poor Menendez brothers! They grew up in a rich family but their parents didn't die too soon so they had to help them!!!

Isn't that the point of locking up violent offenders?

Can you guarantee that no locked up personb will EVER escape?

If that is so, shouldn't we be looking at the issue pragmatically and attempt to determine how to best achieve that goal?

No dead man killed again, but I already mentioned that.

Keep killing the criminals and there will always be more criminals - it keeps no one safe.

it is INCREDIBLY naive to believe that if we just lock them up and keep rehabilating them there will be no more murders. So you are not much better off...

OK, so have I destroyed all of your argument and answered all of your questions? I think so...

P.S.: Have you got the puppy yet? You know the one that you will lock up for the next 10 years in a crate....

 

[Repo Man]

It would take a much more sharply moderated forum than this one to have a meaningful discussion about this.

 

[Syzygys]

OK, for the last time, I will go over this quickly for slow learners...

What's the point of capital punishment?

Bunch of different things: justice, punishment (humanly), retribution, payback, saving (in the simplest way) and protecting (in the fastest way) society from unwanted members, using members to their best capacity (organ donation), also saving lifes. Avoiding sadism (cruel and unusual punishment) as in prison for life. I will throw in deterrent for fun. Probably there are more, if I find them I will list them...
Oh yes, no dead man killed again, I have this on authority...

Is it retribution and revenge?

Depends on their definition. look it up in a dictionary. Let's say it is, what's wrong with either?

Is it to simply remove this non-funtioning member from our society?

Already explained above.

Is it to exact retribution and revenge for the sake of the victim's loved ones?

NOT for the families, for the victims!!!

What do you mean when you say it is justice?

Using a simple example, I assume at your workplace you don't work for half, for equal work you get equal salary, just like your coworkers. If I borrow X dollars from you, you expect the same X dollars or even a bit more and not X/2. Correct? So justice is equal punishment that fits the crime. I think it is a rather simple concept.

How, specifically, will justice be served?

Quoting my favorite novel, the Bible, generally a half eye for an eye works fine. That means that anyone who kills at least 2 people will automaticly die, assuming premeditation. (certain exemptions apply)

Hey, you might have noticed that I slightly contradicted myself above, but that is just because I am compassionate and understand humans...

I think you are a good person to ask for that side.

Yes I am and I do LOVE flattery... (he wasn't addressing me...)

By the way in a former thread I listed the crimes that should be punished by CP and there are way more than just murder. Serial rape, treason,espionage, mutiny, certain white collar crimes, etc.

 

[one_raven]

How can you offer retribution to a dead person?
That makes no sense.

 

[madanthonywayne]

madanthonywayne,
Justice?

What's the point of capital punishment?
Is it retribution and revenge?
Is it to simply remove this non-funtioning member from our society?
Is it to exact retribution and revenge for teh sake of the victim's loved ones?

What do you mean when you say it is justice?
How, specifically, will justice be served?

Keep in mind, I am not necessarily anti-capital punishment. I am just trying to understand both sides better, and I think you are a good person to ask for that side.

The main reason for the death penalty is that the punishment should fit the crime. When you consider the brutality and absolute evil evident in some of these murderers, death is the only appropriate sentence. Anything less is an insult to the memory of the victim.

Consider the magnitude of what has been taken from the victim. They will never be allowed to enjoy any of the pleasures of life again. Not the pleasure of seeing the ones you love, not the pleasure of sex, or even eating. Also consider the destruction done to the loved ones and dependents of the victims.

Do these men deserve rehabilitation? Never, certainly not while their victims lie rotting in the ground.

Here are a few true stories of crimes that never would have been commited had the criminals been executed the first time around instead of serving time in jail (some of them were even sentences to "life", yet somehow got out to commit new crimes):

In 1985, 13-year-old Karen Patterson was shot to death in her bed in North Charleston, S.C. Her killer was a neighbor who had already served 10 years of a life sentence for murdering his half-brother Charles in 1970. Joe Atkins cut the Pattersons' phone lines, then entered bearing a machete, a sawed-off shotgun, and a pistol. Karen's parents were chased out of their home by Atkins. Karen's mom ran to the Atkins home nearby, where Joe then murdered his adopted father, Benjamin Atkins, 75, who had worked to persuade parole authorities to release Joe from the life sentence.

When Katy Davis observed three strangers outside her Austin, Texas, apartment, she walked away. Returning later, she was attacked and forced to open the door by Charles Rector, on parole for a previous murder. The men ransacked her apartment, abducted her and took her to a lake where she was beaten, gang-raped, shot in the head and repeatedly forced underwater until she drowned.

In 1965, Robert Massie murdered mother of two Mildred Weiss in San Gabriel, Calif., during a follow-home robbery. Hours before execution, a stay was issued so Massie could testify against his accomplice. Massie's sentence was commuted to life when the Supreme Court halted executions in 1972. Receiving an undeserved second chance, Massie was paroled, but eight months later robbed and murdered businessman Boris Naumoff in San Francisco. http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/

Dead men do not get out of prison to kill again. Dead men do not get to enjoy doing drugs, writting books, and becoming international celebrities despite being in prison.

As far as the deterent effect of the death penalty, here's a quote that illustrates my thinking on the matter:

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence​

 

[one_raven]

madanthonywayne,

Interesting point of view.
I knew you were thr right one to ask.

Do you support the death penalty for all pre-determined murders, and if not, were do you draw the line?
Just ones of particularly gruesome brutality?
Just ones that involve torture and/or rape?
What about extenuating circumstances?
What about obviously mentally impaired?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Do you support the death penalty for all pre-determined murders, and if not, were do you draw the line?
Just ones of particularly gruesome brutality?
Just ones that involve torture and/or rape?
What about extenuating circumstances?
What about obviously mentally impaired?

I support the death penalty for all first degree murder. The various extenuating circumstances you raise should kick the case down to a lesser charge, such as manslaughter.

 

[Idle Mind]

I would think that in all organ donor scenarios, the inmate would have to volunteer the organs moments before he is executed. You certainly wouldn't be able to use anything after the electric chair, and I don't know which chemicals they use in lethal injections, but most poisons cause organs to fail causing the individual's death.

 

[Challenger78]

This guy should rather become a police officer, and help them catch criminals like him.

Now, that would be the most awesomest reality show/rehab.

On the topic of CP.
I don't see how it's a deterrent. People can get used to living with fear, especially of death.
Besides more people fear prison than death.

 

[Steve100]

ALOT on death row have been found to be innocent (mostly after there excutions)
It doesnt deter people from commiting offences (as shown by the higher rates of capital offences in DP countries)
It is symply blood lust (look at norsefires responce)
It doesnt provide any sort of releif for the victoms families (i will try to find the comments by the former australian magistrate whos son was killed in the bali bombings latter)

People being found innocent is not a problem with the death penalty.

It does provide relief as they know that the criminal will never be back.

 

[codanblad]

surely this scenario just supports legalised euthanasia? i heard about some guy murdering a stranger just to get the death sentence.

i agree with the argument against life imprisonment, and jailing in general, it is a massive waste of resources, and hardens criminals. we just don't have a better option though, as far as i know.

 

[Asguard]

to treat criminal offences as a mental health issue?

 

[Syzygys]

How can you offer retribution to a dead person?
That makes no sense.

Is there anything in the definition of retribution that you can not do it to a dead person? I didn't see it...

I personally would like to get retribution after my death in case I die wrongfully by someone else.

 

[Syzygys]

Besides more people fear prison than death.

That is incorrect. More people fear public speaking, than death. Now that is correct.

I would think that in all organ donor scenarios, the inmate would have to volunteer the organs moments before he is executed.

Sorry sir, but no cigar. Once you are on death row, your ass belongs to the state. And as I already mentioned in the 21st century we are able to put you into sleep forever without damaging your organs....

 

[madanthonywayne]

That is incorrect. More people fear public speaking, than death.

That's one of those idiotic myths that results from the fact that people are so afraid of death that they don't even like to consider it as a possibility. So when you ask someone what they're afraid of, death doesn't come out on top.

But, put the idea to the test. Offer a criminal either death, or force him to give a speech in front of a large crowd. See which one he goes for.

 

[Syzygys]

That's one of those idiotic myths...

Nope. People were asked in a poll and death came in second right after public speaking. I have it on good authority from Jerry Seinfeld.

By the way it is offtopic...

 

[Norsefire]

The death penalty can also be more useful than life in prison.

Life in prison:

The prisoner uses up resources, food, water, etc, and prisons take up space


Execution: the prisoner does not use up resources, and his body can be used for studies or organs

Also as madanthony said, execution is an appropriate punishment. When a man murders others out of cold blood, does he not deserve the same to him?

Why not give the criminal to the victim's family and let them do as they wish? If they forgive him, then there we go, if not, then it's their right to punish as they see fit.


Also again with the liberal nonsense: execution and life improsenment is the same exact thing, except the latter wastes more time and resources. If you are against execution, you are against life in prison.
I don't understand what the difference is; they both end up with the criminal forced to do something against his will, and to die.

Also after the scum are dead we can use their organs to help truly sick people who need them.

It's a win win situation. The criminal is punished, and at least they give something back.

 

[iceaura]

There is no evidence that allowing a government to kill criminals deters the sorts of crimes usually involved - murder, etc.

Deterrence works to discourage logical, rational crimes committed for calculated gain. And certainty of apprehension and punishment is far more of a factor than severity, for any crime. So the death penalty for the usually mentioned crimes is not likely to deter, on grounds of reason as well as historical circumstance and other evidence.

And one can't help but notice that the death penalty is always argued for by people who are rhetorically restricting its use to circumstances other than those realistically available. We are supposed to imagine situations in which guilt is established beyond doubt, the government's systems of courts and so forth have worked as desired by the highminded, the sorts of crimes involved are on a short list of those "deserving" such punishment in the view of the proponent, and so forth.

Against such arguments we have the actual capital punishment for which we have records and recent examples. Accused sentenced to death after trials in which their defense lawyer fell asleep in court. People killed on circumstantial evidence of doubtful provenance. Grandstanding, politically ambitious lawyers and politically vulnerable judges. Death sentences for crimes such as treason, sedition, and other oppositions to the government. Incompetent and corrupt police procedures in politically charged circumstances. Low paid and inexperienced and overworked and politically vulnerable public defenders in high-profile situations. A percentage of mistaken convictions for capital level crimes approaching 20, in some judicial districts. A clear demographic bias in conviction and sentencing for capital crimes (if killing people works so well as a deterrent, how come poor people and black people seem to be less deterred while being killed in much higher percentages ?).

And two specific examples to ponder: Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kasczinski. The one killed with his own cooperation, resulting in the loss of any possibility of more complete information regarding a still obscurely prepared and problematically motivated crime likely involving confederates etc. The other not killed, and that agreement key to his apprehension and the saving of an unknown but probably large number of future victims, at great benefit to the society that agreed to spare his life.

 

[Syzygys]

There is blah-blah-blah....

Wackamole-ding-ding-dong. Feels like it.

Man! You guys don't read the thread before posting? You sound like a freaking broken record. All your whatever were already refuted and like a bad game of wack-a-mole a new genius enters the scene keep bringing them up again and again...

Here is a picture of Icaura's puppy, keeping him in his crate for the next 10 years:

That's how inhuman and unusual punishment looks like...