The Death Penalty - Why Not?

[Baron Max]

It appears to me that the only difference between murder and the Death Penalty is the involvement of the State.

Congratulations. I'm glad you've finally figured that out. Hope you didn't waste too much of your time doing it.

Do you seriously believe that? ..... We spend most of the money on resurfacing, sign-posting, installing cameras, policing and creating bypasses which decrease the danger of traffic on our roads.

And we've done the same with the death penalty for decades ...working to decrease the chance of accidental deaths of innocent people. But just like the roads and highways, it's an ongoing process. We didn't stop all traffic while we figured out the safest roads, did we? Nope. So why should we stop the death penalty while we work to make it more precise?

If the deaths of innocent people was your main concern, then you'd be far more concerned with traffic deaths than the death penalty. But it isn't, is it? So, ....tell us why not.

Baron Max

 

[Cellar_Door]

The chances of dying in an execution are phenomenally higher than the chances of being killed whilst driving down the road. Your example is the stupidest analogy I have ever encountered.

Yet again you fail to address the more important half of my post. I hardly see the point in replying to your comparatively irrelevant bollocks at all.

 

[Baron Max]

The chances of dying in an execution are phenomenally higher than the chances of being killed whilst driving down the road.

Really? Are you sure you want to make that statement? Read it again.

Baron Max

 

[Cellar_Door]

Really? Are you sure you want to make that statement? Read it again.

Baron Max

Don't be an arse - the statement makes perfect sense if you're not looking for fault. The chances of dying in an execution are pretty much certain. Even if you don't die the first time round they'll zap you again. I drive everywhere and I'm still alive.

 

[Baron Max]

Don't be an arse - the statement makes perfect sense if you're not looking for fault. The chances of dying in an execution are pretty much certain. Even if you don't die the first time round they'll zap you again. I drive everywhere and I'm still alive.

That's not what your earlier statement said!

Of all the millions of drivers on the road, the chances that one will be killed in a car accident are much greater, far greater, than one of those millions being killed in the death penalty. Hell, there are tens of thousands killed in car accidents, yet only a very, very few killed in death penalty cases.

Somehow, you're not actually typing out what you're thinking ...I think?

Let's talk about innocent people who are killed. You don't like that, do you? Okay, I'm guessing that you say 'yes'. So, if you could, which would you stop ....the death penalty executions or the traffic deaths?

Baron Max

 

[Cellar_Door]

That's not what your earlier statement said!

Of all the millions of drivers on the road, the chances that one will be killed in a car accident are much greater, far greater, than one of those millions being killed in the death penalty. Hell, there are tens of thousands killed in car accidents, yet only a very, very few killed in death penalty cases.

Somehow, you're not actually typing out what you're thinking ...I think?

Let's talk about innocent people who are killed. You don't like that, do you? Okay, I'm guessing that you say 'yes'. So, if you could, which would you stop ....the death penalty executions or the traffic deaths?

Baron Max

Baron, is your argument really that weak?

I would stop Death Penalty executions. However, if we fly back to the real world, you'd realise that the two are not linked in the slightest.

I doubt you could find the point with a map and a sign-posted route.

 

[Baron Max]

Baron, is your argument really that weak?

It's not weak at all ....except from your biased point of view.

I would stop Death Penalty executions. However, if we fly back to the real world, you'd realise that the two are not linked in the slightest.

So you'd stop the executions to save a few lives per year .....rather than stop the car accidents which claim tens of thousand of lives per year? And you wonder where I get the idea that you're overly biased against the death penalty?

See? You're not the least bit interested in the deaths of innocent people ....ONLY the accidental deaths in the death penalty cases. You're totally biased, completely and totally biased, yet you won't openly admit it.

Baron Max

 

[Cellar_Door]

So you'd stop the executions to save a few lives per year .....rather than stop the car accidents which claim tens of thousand of lives per year? And you wonder where I get the idea that you're overly biased against the death penalty?

See? You're not the least bit interested in the deaths of innocent people ....ONLY the accidental deaths in the death penalty cases. You're totally biased, completely and totally biased, yet you won't openly admit it.

Baron Max

You rejected Wikipedia as biased earlier on in this thread, so your grasp of the definition is not something I will give much weight to. Yet AGAIN I have to remind you that 'loss of innocent life' is not the argument I have at any point in this thread put across.

Net, per capita loss of life is not part of the question at all; accidents happen and always will. As a society we try our best to reduce the chance of accidental death but our efforts will never be able to stop them completely. What about the thousands of people killed on building sites, by genetic disease or in natural disasters? You see? Therein lies the idiocy of your question: these losses of life cannot be stopped instantly.

The Death Penalty on the other hand is NOT a source of accidental death. People are killed systematically and with intent. These deaths are avoidable.

 

[Baron Max]

As a society we try our best to reduce the chance of accidental death but our efforts will never be able to stop them completely.

I agree. And as a society, we're also doing our best to reduce the chance of accidental innocent deaths in death penalty cases. I'm glad that we finally agree on something.

The Death Penalty..... People are killed systematically and with intent.

Yes, they are intentional ...as deemed legal and appropriate by the society and it's laws and rules.

The Death Penalty on the other hand is NOT a source of accidental death. .... These deaths are avoidable.

But why would we want to avoid it? It's the law, it's the courts that have decided to execute the individuals.

If it's later determined that someone who was executed was, in fact, innocent, then it was, just as you've noted above, an accident, and accidents happen even as we try to prevent it. And you admitted that, too.

Note ...it's only AFTER the execution that we discover that the death was accidental. Prior to that discovery, the death was absolutely intentional as deemed legal and appropriate by the courts.

What I think you're trying to say is this; If we never, ever, executed ANYONE, then no death penalty "accidents" would ever occur. And that's probably accurate.

But then, by the same token, if we never let anyone drive cars, then we'd also never have deaths in car accidents. So....?

And then I'm right back to wondering why you care some much about the very few DP accidents than you care about the gazillion auto accidental deaths? See? You're just using dead people to further your biased argument against the death penalty.

Baron Max

 

[phlogistician]

No, I haven't dodged it ...I've answered it in a thousand different ways on this thread, you just weren't reading.

No Max, you've taken it on a tangent, as always.

In answering again; It's simple, one killing is done by the state in accordance with the law and any and all legal proceedings in a legitimate court of law. Any other killings are done illegally according to the legitimate legal statues of the state. See? One is illegal, the other is legal. See? See?

Killing people in car crashes isn't legal, so clearly you don't believe what you just wrote. You made the correlation in your previous posts, between deaths in car wrecks, and road accident deaths. You are flip flopping Max.

A legal killing by the state is no different to the state allowing, even demanding, that its soldiers kill the enemy soldiers in battle. Surely you wouldn't arrest and try soldiers for killing the enemy soldiers, would you?

Yet another tangent, Max, and yes, I would, and those that send them to do their job, ie every single person involved in the whole Iraq debacle, but that, again, is another debate. Can you stick to the topic?

Well, it is somewhat meaningless to me. But see, here's the catch ...you claim that it's NOT meaningless to YOU. Yet you rant and rail against the death penalty ...when you should be ranting and railing against car accidents which take far, far more innocent lives than the death penalty EVER did.

Like I said Max, that's a different debate, stick to the topic.

See? If you don't believe in the death penalty, just say so. There's absolutely no reason for you to try to justify your beliefs. there's also no reason for you to continue to try to convince me to agree with you ....when I've pointed out all the inconsistencies of your arguments.

Baron Max

You haven't pointed out a single inconsistency Max. You stuffed a straw man, tried to draw the debate, but you haven't actually found me inconsistent, anywhere!

Please feel free to quote me where I HAVE ACTUALLY STATED something contradictory, not where you have clumsily tried to put words in my mouth, or decide what I should think!

 

[sniffy]

So should the folks who are involved in the execution of someone who is then found to be innocent also be tried for murder and be subject to the death penalty?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Sniffy, yes, but then there could be a reversal of a reversal, and you'd wind up with a host of judicial positions available. I just say we should keep it simple. Commit a violent crime? We kill you for it. Commit a nonviolent crime? We kill you for it. Like the color yellow a bit too much? We kill you for that too. Thinking about toilets? We'll kill you for that too. Saves time this way. Eventually solves a host of other problems as well. But those would be other debates.

 

[Baron Max]

Killing people in car crashes isn't legal, so clearly you don't believe what you just wrote.

Every auto accident that I've ever heard about was caused by the driver or drivers involved in some highway maneuver that was illegal. In other words, the driver's illegal actions caused the death of himself or others.

You made the correlation in your previous posts, between deaths in car wrecks, and road accident deaths.

And it still stands. Deaths of innocent people in car wrecks are accidental. Deaths of innocent people in the death penalty cases are accidental.

More accidental deaths of innocent people are caused by car accidents than all the death penalty accidents in all of human history. Yet some people are adamant about stopping the death penalty accidents, and do nothing about car accidental deaths. Or worse, they ignore them or wave them off as simply "accidents". Dead people are dead people, however they were killed.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

So should the folks who are involved in the execution of someone who is then found to be innocent also be tried for murder and be subject to the death penalty?

No, can't be tried for murder, because the state can't "murder" anyone in any legal definitions that I know. However, the state can and is tried in courts for "wrongful death". And the state can be forced to pay large sums of money to the victim's family.

Baron Max

 

[phlogistician]

Every auto accident that I've ever heard about was caused by the driver or drivers involved in some highway maneuver that was illegal. In other words, the driver's illegal actions caused the death of himself or others.



And it still stands. Deaths of innocent people in car wrecks are accidental. Deaths of innocent people in the death penalty cases are accidental.

More accidental deaths of innocent people are caused by car accidents than all the death penalty accidents in all of human history. Yet some people are adamant about stopping the death penalty accidents, and do nothing about car accidental deaths. Or worse, they ignore them or wave them off as simply "accidents". Dead people are dead people, however they were killed.

Baron Max

Max, stop banging on about car accidents, it makes you seem senile.

People executed wrongly by the state are not accidents either. It's a miscarriage of justice.

Now, try and stay on topic and cut out the rhetoric. Oh, and stop shooting yourself in the foot, because;

Dead people are dead people, however they were killed

Why would you prosecute people for killing people, if you really believe that, it's not worse than your red herring of a car accident!

Take your meds, and stop flip-flopping, Max.

 

[sniffy]

No, can't be tried for murder, because the state can't "murder" anyone in any legal definitions that I know. However, the state can and is tried in courts for "wrongful death". And the state can be forced to pay large sums of money to the victim's family.

Baron Max

But isn't the state made up of people? And isn't wrongful death a euphamism for murder and isn't murder subject to......
Or do we have the 'well I was only following orders' excuse here.

Can the state reincarnate people too?

 

[Baron Max]

People executed wrongly by the state are not accidents either. It's a miscarriage of justice.

It's a miscarriage of justice ....ONLY... after the it becomes known that the victim was innocent. Prior to that, it was the exercise of legal justice. You're sorta' lookin' at things like an armchair quarterback ...or through the asshole end of things!

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

But isn't the state made up of people?

Yes, and the people of those states voted and agreed with the state's use of the death penalty. States that don't have the death penalty were told by the people not to execute criminals. See? Power to the people, huh?

And isn't wrongful death a euphamism for murder...

No, wrongful death is not murder in any legal sense of the term.

Or do we have the 'well I was only following orders' excuse here.

No, it's more like "I was only following LEGAL, VALID orders" ...there's a world of difference in the legal sense.

Can the state reincarnate people too?

Yes, easily. But the state doesn't want to do it. See? Power to the people!

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

It's a miscarriage of justice ....ONLY... after the it becomes known that the victim was innocent. Prior to that, it was the exercise of legal justice. You're sorta' lookin' at things like an armchair quarterback ...or through the asshole end of things!

Baron Max

Uhm no it was a miscarriage of justice all along, not only after it has become known.

 

[sniffy]

Yes, and the people of those states voted and agreed with the state's use of the death penalty. States that don't have the death penalty were told by the people not to execute criminals. See? Power to the people, huh?



No, wrongful death is not murder in any legal sense of the term.



No, it's more like "I was only following LEGAL, VALID orders" ...there's a world of difference in the legal sense.



Yes, easily. But the state doesn't want to do it. See? Power to the people!

Baron Max

Oh yur 'onour I din't kill the baron ah only wrongfully deathed him with his own pistol.....both of which is legal in this state of Texus.