He should likewise be way more interested in auto accidents than preventing gay marriage.
The Death Penalty - Why Not?
- Thread starter 11parcal
- Start date
He should likewise be way more interested in auto accidents than preventing gay marriage.
Yeah I have, and it's lazy for you to let someone else explain your position for you Max.
Also, I've covered most of his points in response to you already. Seems you are to lazy to read the responses I make, and too lazy to make detailed posts yourself, and let someone else do it.
That means you're just ranting, and not debating. Please make some effort.
That's fine, James, and I'll fight to the death for your right to disagree. However, you (and some others) have taken it further than that by trying to "justify" your beliefs/opinions ....and you've all done a piss-poor job of it. I've never argued about your believe, only the silly "justifications" for it.
Well, face it, James, no one needs to present a case FOR the death penalty because society has already done that ...as you're probably aware. People are being executed all over the world every day. I don't have to present ANY compelling case, those deaths take care of that quite well. Texas just executed several over the past couple of weeks, and there's a couple of more coming soon.
I have no need to present a compelling case for it ....you, on the other hand, .....?
Baron Max
I agree. But Quadraphonics was so eloquent. That and he used a lot of nice big words and long sentences, so it just appeared at first glance that he knew what he was talking about. You know, like thick books are always more impressive than those tiny, thin ones.
And as I told James above, I don't have to present anything ...the state and society has taken care of that for me. People are being executed all day, every day, all over the world. So, see, I don't have to do anything.
Baron Max
Yes you do. Here's some food for thought.
"Between 1973 and 1995, 67% of capital convictions in the United States were eventually overturned, mainly on procedural grounds of incompetent legal counsel, police or prosecutors who suppressed evidence, judges who gave jurors the wrong instructions and mass commutations by governors personally opposed to the death penalty.[3][4] Among those whose sentences were overturned, seven percent were acquitted and ten percent were retried and re-sentenced to death.[4] The remainder typically ended up with lesser sentences, up to and including life imprisonment." (wikipedia).
As the majority of those on death row are poor, or black, or both, it seems the real issue is access to legal counsel. Do you like the idea that 67% were sentenced incorrectly, and then, only 10% of those (a mere 6.7% of the total population) when properly tried, are found guilty and sentenced accordingly again?
I find those numbers rather shocking. Especially the 7% acquittal rate. That is a heinous number for miscarriages of justice.
No, I don't! The death penalty is alive and well. You're the one who wants it changed and you're trying all kinds of silly arguments that just don't hold water. I don't have to justify anything, society has already done it.
See? It has little or nothing to do with guilt or innocence ...only legal bullshit that may or may not have been true. Yet you are "assuming" that all of those convicted were innocent ....which is patently false.
Shocking? How do you feel about the tens of thousands of preventable auto accidents where innocent people die? Geez, you must have major heart attacks over those numbers, huh?
Baron Max
You should be worried that you require said clarifications in the first place.
Evasion of taking an explicit position is itself a form of comment, particularly when you are repeatedly, directly challenged to do so. And, anyway, my entire point was that said failure to stake out a position plays into Baron's hands. So, gg on your retort.
I'm not.
So I surmised. If that's all you have to say, why participate?
I can think of two obvious reasons, the first being a desire to prevail in the debate. The second would be a desire to elevate the productivity and usefulness of this discussion (and, through the power of example, other discussions on this site).
Ah, so the level of discourse here is determined using a lowest-common-denominator system. In retrospect, I should have realized this earlier... Oof course, such an approach provides zero incentive for Baron to up his game, since he's vastly better than you at dominating such debased discourses. So, have fun with that.
Max:
That's not an argument in favour of the death penalty.
The fact that some people act immorally doesn't justify the immoral acts themselves.
It's a simple point, Max.
quadraphonics:
Well, at least we can be thankful that you're here to raise the tone!
Except when you're not interested, of course.
That's not an argument in favour of the death penalty.
The fact that some people act immorally doesn't justify the immoral acts themselves.
It's a simple point, Max.
quadraphonics:
Well, at least we can be thankful that you're here to raise the tone!
Except when you're not interested, of course.
Depends on who decides "morality", don't it? In your perfect little world, James, who decides "morality"?
In our society, the death penalty has been decided and approved by that society. I have no need to put forth an argument of pro-death penalty ...it's already approved by society. You're the one who needs to convince me, and others like me, to eliminate that practice. You've done an atrocious job of convincing me!
We both know that "morals and ethics" are decided by those who have the most power, the biggest guns and the willingness to use 'em. You don't like to admit that, but you know it.
You don't like to discuss this issue with Quadraphonics, do you, James? Why not ...is he making you look like an ass?
Baron Max
The idea is that you express your gratitude by trying to do a better job when I'm not around. And, in the first place, isn't raising the tone your job?
And clearly they aren't all guilty either. The 'legal bullshit' not being a good reason to execute people.
Executing people, if we do it at all, should be everything to do with guilt or innocence Max. But thanks for shooting your own argument in the foot.
Yes, they are guilty. Guilt or innocence is determined by the courts. We are, you know, a nation of laws. As such, guilt is set/determined by legal proceedings. Do you want to get rid of all laws and courts?
Society determines the legal punishment for crimes committed. Society has determined that legal execution is appropriate for some heinous crimes. That's the law, and we're a nation of laws.
I agree. And guilt or innocence is determined by a legal court in accordance with the laws of the nation. Are you suggesting that we get rid of courts and laws and such?
Baron Max
And on review, the decisions are often WRONG, and sentences overturned.
Yet another tangent Max?
alaska1976
Registered Member
A side from the point of "forgive them first" type people, there should not be a single thing wrong with using the death penality for those who have been shown by the evidence/admittance or both that they with full purpose and premeditation took another person(s) life.
I worked in the state and federal prison systems in the late seventies and eighties. I can verify for you that those that kill with purpose are more then grateful for those who are against the death penality. A small minority of them who end up living in "open population" instead of a single or double cell for life go on to injur/kill inmates and or correctional officers.
Longer sentences for second time offenders and the death sentence for proved premeditated murder in all 50 states would have a great deturant effect upon people leaning to commit a crime.