USA Law Revision

[MickeyFinn]

I need some outside opinions on a few topics.


1) I think two people of sound mind and body should be able to enter a cage and fight to the death. Should this be legal? I'm a huge believer in allowing people do whatever they want, as long as it's to themselves. This topic could easily be paired with legal suicide, which I also support.

2) Physical Punishment. I hear the arguments toward people saying "Well, if you execute a murderer that only furthers the cycle, making you a murderer yourself", but I really don't see how that's true at all. Why the hell shouldn't body parts be removed as punishment for felonies that amputate a person's dignity, self-respect, or worse? We know for a fact that crime would be reduced if it were to be put in the books.


I know that there are a lot of folks who would disagree, but I need help seeing the logic behind not making things this way.

[eilariele]

1) yeah sure, as long as it's not televised. Then all the retards out there take it too far. I think suicide is suicide. period. Once it's done, that person doesn't care if it was legal or not... Now as for assisted suicide, as in good ol' Jack Kavorkian well he's just my hero.

2)I'm not sure if Murder falls under physical punishment, but for this message ok. I'll let it slide. If murdering a murderer were completing or furthering a cycle and everybody thought that, then there would be an ass load of these freaks walking the streets, or filling our prisons, that we'd be paying to keep there. I don't want to pay for these assholes meals, and electricity. I say Off with their heads! Do it old style, in a town center, give it a new age twist and make it televised, make sure everyone knows and understands what happens to you when you kill someone. This whole behind closed doors shit is the down fall of capital punishment. Historically, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by nearly all societies —both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent.. Why stop now?

Unfortunately! On October 10th, 2007, the World Day against the Death Penalty will focus on the proposed UN General Assembly's 62nd session resolution for a universal moratorium on executions. And imo everyone who's for this idea should be shot on the spot!

[Rooster]

Mickey,

#1;
a) the problem is determining if it was completely voluntary.
b) if they live, who pays the medical bills?

#2;
a) the only problem I see with that is, the punishment can't be reversed / waived if the guilty was later found innocent (yes, our system does a very good job of ensuring no innocent party is found guilty, however - as we are human, it's always possible to make mistakes). Not that you can reverse time served, but it's easier to overcome that than missing body parts.

b) If there were a way to prove (beyond the "beyond a shadow of a doubt") guilt with absolute accuracy, then I could see some severe punishments being an option.

[Allison]

Assisted suicide, capital punishment, fighting to the death, and severe corporal punishment.

That's a lot to respond to all in one thread. I think I'm overwhelmed at the thought of it.

[Post]

"We know for a fact that crime would be reduced if it were to be put in the books."

Sources?

[Noleader]

If murdering a murderer were completing or furthering a cycle and everybody thought that, then there would be an ass load of these freaks walking the streets, or filling our prisons, that we'd be paying to keep there. I don't want to pay for these assholes meals, and electricity. I say Off with their heads! Do it old style, in a town center, give it a new age twist and make it televised, make sure everyone knows and understands what happens to you when you kill someone. This whole behind closed doors shit is the down fall of capital punishment. Historically, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by nearly all societies —both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent.. Why stop now?

First off, look it up, you pay more to execute someone then you do to put them in prison for life.

I would welcome a law mandating all executions must be held in public... not because I think it would help with crime rates (When someone does the crime they normally think they will get away with it), but because it would cause a large outcry to do away with executions. That is the reason executions were moved behind closed doors. Lots of people cry out that we should execute but most do not have the balls to sit there and watch someone die. Nothing like a rolling head to get folks in the mood to outlaw executions.

Lastly you should revisit your history books... just off the top of my head I can think of Washington in Valley Forge and how he publicly executed folks caught deserting... it did not slow the level of folks deserting at all...

Execution does not work as a means to reduce crime, nor does disfiguing someone... Most people that break the law do not have a super ego.... they do not consider the punishment for their crime then they are planning or commiting it. Normally the criminals that do not get caught are the ones that considered all that.

[Rooster]

Noleader, afaik, it is accepted that the death penalty does deter crime. It would be on your shoulders to prove otherwise.

As well as the General Washington, Valley Forge issue. Please provide evidence. When you suggest something that is contradictory to a normal conclusion you should present evidence for such. Otherwise it's just "chaff".

And, I seriously doubt it costs the state more than $400,000 to execute someone - and that is easily the cost to keep an inmate in jail for 10 years.

Would love to see your sources on that post.

[Aelfwine]

First off, look it up, you pay more to execute someone then you do to put them in prison for life.


Thats not because the death penalty doesn't work. Its because our system doesn't.

I don't want innocent people to be put to death but I think those on death row should get one appeal and this process should be complete within 6 months of the original sentence.

[MickeyFinn]

"#1;
a) the problem is determining if it was completely voluntary.
"

As long as there's no profit to be made, I don't see how this would be an issue, really.



C'mon Post. My sources? 13th Century Europe. Off with their heads!

[Post]

"Noleader, afaik, it is accepted that the death penalty does deter crime. It would be on your shoulders to prove otherwise."

*Every*, and I mean *every* statistical comparison between death penalty and non-death penalty states at the same time I've seen has the non-death penalty states getting lower crime than the pro-death penalty states. I'd welcome a study showing the opposite.

Every pro death penalty study I've seen has either (a) a conclusion by someone pro-death penalty making an argument for it without statistics (saying things like asking if you'd be more scared of a death penalty than life in prison, when that wouldn't count because I'm in my right frame of mind), or comparisons from different time periods. They do things like show crime was worse 10 years ago without the death penalty, and now that it has it, it's better, so it must be the death penalty. They ignore that it's better other places.

Here's a bunch of statistics from death penalty comparisons:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=167

Pretty much all of them show that the death penalty did nothing to improve the murder rate compared to non-death penalty states, and in most cases, the non-death penalty states had more improvement.

[Rooster]

How about repeat offenders?

I believe that 60% of all crimes are from repeat offenders? (not specifically only stating murders)

Do you trust our system to keep them in prison? I don't.

[Post]

That's an issue with the prison, not the punishment, though. If it is assumed all of these people who are to be executed are given life without parole instead, then the only way they can get out is if

(a) they were unjustly imprisoned, in which case it's a good thing they weren't executed
(b) they get off on a technicality, in which case the solution to the problem is fixing the system
(c) they escape, in which case the solution to the problem is to fix the jail

I mean, closing a road will prevent accidents on it for sure, but all other things being equal, you use other methods so you don't interrupt the normal flow of things (ie, keep the road open, find other ways to stop accidents). The normal flow of things in this case, is not killing other people in the name of the law.

Assuming that the facts are really true - that it's cheaper to put someone with life without parole instead of killing them, and that it doesn't prevent crime and may even make it worse by proxy of the desensitization of death in our society - why would someone still support the death penalty? I can maybe understand if you don't believe it's cheaper or you believe it really does stop crime (I and the statistics disagree with you, but as with most facts, nothing is 100%), but even if those are assumed as the other conclusion?

All I can think of that's left is the satisfaction of vengeance, which isn't the path our government should take at all. Revenge is not a function of law.

[MickeyFinn]

Can we at least agree on forced labor and taking away their TV?

All the books in the world. No TV. Peanut butter and water for meals.

[Noleader]

Would love to see your sources on that post.

On the Cost...

The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions. (L.A. Times, March 6, 2005)

In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration. (Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).

In Indiana, the total costs of the death penalty exceed the complete costs of life without parole sentences by about 38%, assuming that 20% of death sentences are overturned and reduced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002).

The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993).

Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).

In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

On Deterrence...

According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies, 84% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Akers, 1996)

Consistent with previous years, the 2004 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate. The South accounts for over 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, again had the lowest murder rate.

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded: ". . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment."

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230)

Reviewing the evidence on the relation between changes in the use of the death penalty and homicide rates, a study conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002 stated: "The fact that the statistics continue to point in the same direction is persuasive evidence that countries need not fear sudden and serious changes in the curve of crime if they reduce their reliance upon the death penalty".

Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2006, 30 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000 population, 40 per cent lower than in 1975 and the second lowest rate in three decades.

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 214)

Problem with speeding the Execution...

Since 1973, over 120 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. (Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil & Constitutional Rights, Oct. 1993, with updates from DPIC).
In 2000, 8 inmates were freed from death row and exonerated; in 2001 – 2002, another 9 were freed; and in 2003, 12 were exonerated. In 2004, there were 6 exonerations.

I found all that after a few minutes of searching... What you think is generally unaccepted happens to be more accepted then you think. So where are your sources now?

[Post]

"Can we at least agree on forced labor and taking away their TV?"

I'm not going to agree with anything that may make the job of the guards more difficult. If a prisoner is in for life without parole, I just want them complacent as hell sitting there, and that probably involves TV.

[Rooster]

Noleader, I did a few minutes of searching as well - and what I found is slanted statistic gathering - especially that Duke 1993 report.

The cost [they report] is in the trial, not the execution. It (wrongfully so) included the cost of all the trials that did not result in a guilty verdict. I am sure other anti-death penalty reports did the same thing to skew the numbers. So, no, I don't think the reports (unless done in a statistically-true manner) are truthful. They are only looking at the cost of the trial - not the cost of the actual incarceration or execution. It's a complete joke. The only thing these studies show is lawyers are the ones making the money. They soak the taxpayers because a fellow human being decided he or she didn't have to follow the rules. (That being said, I understand it takes an immense amount of time/effort/learning to adequately defend/prosecute someone accused of a crime, and being paid to do that is not a crime in itself; it's just higher cost than most people can afford. That is a problem with our system/efficiency/complexity, not with justice as a whole.)

As for Roger Hood's book; looking at things in a vacuum isn't accurate either. One should also compare a nation with the death penalty with a similar crime rate of one that abolished the death penalty.

Regarding the 1-way ticket aspect (your last paragraph), that report does not indicate what time frame we're talking. 6 months? 2 years? 10 years?

[Rooster]

"Can we at least agree on forced labor and taking away their TV?"

I'm not going to agree with anything that may make the job of the guards more difficult. If a prisoner is in for life without parole, I just want them complacent as hell sitting there, and that probably involves TV.
You have to be kidding me.... It's not about the ease of the guard's job. It's about punishing someone that can't live in society. As I happen to know a prison guard, I have no problem stating this.

(Okay, if you make it Barney, all-day, every-day - sure... which, of course, may increase our mental patient quantity)

[eilariele]

Clockwork Orange? Only don't let them back out afterwards...

[MickeyFinn]

"Can we at least agree on forced labor and taking away their TV?"

I'm not going to agree with anything that may make the job of the guards more difficult. If a prisoner is in for life without parole, I just want them complacent as hell sitting there, and that probably involves TV.


Forced labor could save the government money that could be used to double up on guards.

[Allison]

Of course, the problem with forced labor is, how do you force it?

[Post]

"You have to be kidding me.... It's not about the ease of the guard's job. It's about punishing someone that can't live in society. As I happen to know a prison guard, I have no problem stating this."

Oh, please. As I've stated, the three purposes of incarceration are rehabilitation, deterrence and society safety. Obviously, if they're in prison for life without parole, there's no chance of rehabilitation, and it isn't any safer for anyone if the prisoner isn't watching TV (arguably less safe for some because of the complacency issue). So you're stating either there's some other function of incarceration or better yet, there's people out there that would go to prison for life so they can murder someone, but wouldn't take that final step if there wasn't any TV to watch?

[Rooster]

Of course, the problem with forced labor is, how do you force it?
Threaten solitary?

[Rooster]

Watching TV is a priveledge, not a right - I think you're too soft (apparently morally and on criminals). Prison should suck ass.

And you're smokin' crack (or just liberalism-o-the-brain) if you think that there's any function of incarceration higher than punishment. If you really think otherwise, now I see why we have such a problem in society; we should love them, shelter them, show them how compassionate we are... hell, can't make rent? Just go to prison!

Rehab? Yeah, in the terms of "Zomg, I dont wanna go back there again; I shouldn't be a fuck-up."

[MickeyFinn]

Oh, please. As I've stated, the three purposes of incarceration are rehabilitation, deterrence and society safety. Obviously, if they're in prison for life without parole, there's no chance of rehabilitation, and it isn't any safer for anyone if the prisoner isn't watching TV (arguably less safe for some because of the complacency issue). So you're stating either there's some other function of incarceration or better yet, there's people out there that would go to prison for life so they can murder someone, but wouldn't take that final step if there wasn't any TV to watch?


You didn't provide an argument for deterrence. In your opinion, would crime be deterred if a person knew that prison consisted of peanut butter, water, and a cage?

[Post]

"And you're smokin' crack (or just liberalism-o-the-brain) if you think that there's any function of incarceration higher than punishment. If you really think otherwise, now I see why we have such a problem in society; we should love them, shelter them, show them how compassionate we are... hell, can't make rent? Just go to prison!"

Punishment isn't a goal, it's a means or tool for the goal. The highest purpose of all of society's functions is so society can flourish and be advantageous for its inhabitants. To state any of society's operations have an end goal other than that - like what you're indirectly stating it stops at punishment - is ridiculous.

If it furthers society's overall goal of encouraging a "good" society, then yeah, I'm perfectly for the three stated goals of incarceration. You should be, too. Assuming the evidence is correct, wouldn't you be for rehabilitation if it worked? Or is the personal satisfaction that the criminal got what's coming to them more important than the betterment of society overall?

"You didn't provide an argument for deterrence. In your opinion, would crime be deterred if a person knew that prison consisted of peanut butter, water, and a cage?"

Comparing life in prison without parole and life in prison without parole *and only getting peanut butter and water in a cage*? No. As I stated, the three frames of mind that a murderer has does not go beyond life in prison because being willing to murder within itself is being in a bad frame of mind. You're trying to fit logical thinking into murdering someone, and that doesn't work.

[Noleader]

The cost [they report] is in the trial, not the execution. It (wrongfully so) included the cost of all the trials that did not result in a guilty verdict. I am sure other anti-death penalty reports did the same thing to skew the numbers. So, no, I don't think the reports (unless done in a statistically-true manner) are truthful. They are only looking at the cost of the trial - not the cost of the actual incarceration or execution. It's a complete joke. The only thing these studies show is lawyers are the ones making the money. They soak the taxpayers because a fellow human being decided he or she didn't have to follow the rules. (That being said, I understand it takes an immense amount of time/effort/learning to adequately defend/prosecute someone accused of a crime, and being paid to do that is not a crime in itself; it's just higher cost than most people can afford. That is a problem with our system/efficiency/complexity, not with justice as a whole.)


If they did not seek the death in those cases it would have not cost the taxpayers the money... so the end result is that expense is part of putting people to death. You can justify it any way you like but the fact still stands the money was spent for that purpose.


As for Roger Hood's book; looking at things in a vacuum isn't accurate either. One should also compare a nation with the death penalty with a similar crime rate of one that abolished the death penalty.


That is an opinion... show me stats of your example or don't dispute it.


Regarding the 1-way ticket aspect (your last paragraph), that report does not indicate what time frame we're talking. 6 months? 2 years? 10 years?

Here is some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#United_States

Here is an example of YEARS going by before he was set free: http://www.ipsnews.org/news.asp?idnews=34224

[Rooster]

The murder trial costs the same regardless of the sentence, at least in N.C. - the judge determines the sentence. So no - the comparison is misleading at best - patently false at worst.

As for the book, no, that's not an opinion. It's a statistical truth. It goes back to the "Everyone that eats breakfast dies, therefore breakfast kills". One cannot directly correlate one thing with another without having a "control".

As for the overturns.. 9 years seems to be the mean, which, in my opinion has ruined that life.. but ONLY if the person is found innocent; each over-turned death sentence may have found them guilty of another crime, but that's just as speculative as that they are completely innocent. But too many gaps in the (the list of) information for my taste.

[Noleader]

The murder trial costs the same regardless of the sentence, at least in N.C. - the judge determines the sentence. So no - the comparison is misleading at best - patently false at worst.

So then you contention about my stats being wrong is invalid then... atleast that is what you are saying here.


As for the book, no, that's not an opinion. It's a statistical truth. It goes back to the "Everyone that eats breakfast dies, therefore breakfast kills". One cannot directly correlate one thing with another without having a "control".

If the death penalty is such a effective deterrent then by all means when a nation does away with it you should see some rise in the murder rate. The fact is no stats I've seen support such a claim and the only claim you can put forth is my stats don't prove it... you do not even offer stats that show "breakfast kills." One must wonder if your deterrent arguement comes out of one of Bush's books; you know the ones that don't bother with facts, but comes from the gut.

As for the overturns.. 9 years seems to be the mean, which, in my opinion has ruined that life.. but ONLY if the person is found innocent; each over-turned death sentence may have found them guilty of another crime, but that's just as speculative as that they are completely innocent. But too many gaps in the (the list of) information for my taste.

This is a question and should not be taken as anything other then a question: So you think we should put those same people to death faster (say within 6 months of the sentence like suggested above) just to avoid the uglyness of them being released because the state screawed up somewhere and to save money? I really hope you do not mean that.

[Post]

"If the death penalty is such a effective deterrent then by all means when a nation does away with it you should see some rise in the murder rate. The fact is no stats I've seen support such a claim and the only claim you can put forth is my stats don't prove it..."

And as I stated, the state that is assumed is that it doesn't deter any better than life in prison. The only consistent arguments that I've seen show that states that have done away with the death penalty fare better in their murder rates than ones that haven't. But, if you don't want to directly correlate the penalty with the murder rate, then I'm not sure how you can prove that the death penalty is more effective, and it falls back to the safe assumption - that it isn't more effective than life in prison.

[Noleader]

Really... If anyone thinks executing prisoners is a good thing: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=127&scid=30#interexec

Look at the nations that agree with our method of justice:
- 2 are nations grouped in the 3 nation 'Axis of Evil'
- 1 is under extreme international pressure for acts of genocide.
- 1 is commie trash that we hate being like; national heathcare anyone? :)
- 1 We did not like till they agreed to let us use their nation to hit Osama.
- And then there is us.

So out of the top 6 (of which we are 6th place) they are all nations we outright hate, or claim we are better then, or want to invade, etc...

[Rooster]

So then you contention about my stats being wrong is invalid then... atleast that is what you are saying here.




If the death penalty is such a effective deterrent then by all means when a nation does away with it you should see some rise in the murder rate. The fact is no stats I've seen support such a claim and the only claim you can put forth is my stats don't prove it... you do not even offer stats that show "breakfast kills." One must wonder if your deterrent arguement comes out of one of Bush's books; you know the ones that don't bother with facts, but comes from the gut.



This is a question and should not be taken as anything other then a question: So you think we should put those same people to death faster (say within 6 months of the sentence like suggested above) just to avoid the uglyness of them being released because the state screawed up somewhere and to save money? I really hope you do not mean that.
To be honest, none of your comments really made any sense... it's like you're not even reading what I wrote.

[MickeyFinn]

Those nations aren't in my axis of evil, and their forms of punishment aren't the reason that Bush hates them, either. In fact, I bet he'd stand hand in hand with Iraqis as they hung a murderer- but that's not the point.

How many of those 1,700 people China executed got the chance to murder someone else?

[MickeyFinn]

I love this web site.

[Post]

"How many of those 1,700 people China executed got the chance to murder someone else?"

Hell, if they executed everyone that committed any crime from murder to petty theft, I bet none of them got the chance to commit a crime again, either.

[MickeyFinn]

Bingo! It's almost as if we're taking a stand together, to not tolerate crime! No need to execute for petty theft though, removal of one hand (their choice) will suffice.

Also, I'd like all convicted rapists to have a tattoo across their face that says "RAPIST"

[Allison]

I wouldn't use China as any kind of example. They execute people for billing errors there.

[Rooster]

Now there's deterrence... (and fear...)

[Noleader]

To be honest, none of your comments really made any sense... it's like you're not even reading what I wrote.

I read what you worte but you basically talk in circles and refuse to back it up with stats. That results in my arguement returning to the first points I made before as you have not refuted them with anything but your opinion.

[eilariele]

Also, I'd like all convicted rapists to have a tattoo across their face that says "RAPIST"

/agree

Add "WIFE BEATER" "HUSBAND KILLER" and "PSYCHO" to that list too please...

[]LoL[Harm]

Since crime is heavily weighted to be caused by those of lower incomes and of lower intelligence I move we just execute everyone who makes less that $80,000 US dollars a year (individual income, not combined with spouse...women who make currently ~.75 cents to every $1 will only have to make $60,000) and all those who have below a 120 IQ, using current testing methods.

[]LoL[Harm]

Next, we will then tattoo a persons socioeconomic status on their foreheads so that they'll be reminded of their place and not think too much on improving themselves. Sadly Bush will be dead, but Cheney will most likely still be around sporting a new Upper High Class or Socio-Economic Elite (his choice) tattoo on his forehead.

[eilariele]

You've just ruled out most of your online friends. You are going to be so lonely!

[]LoL[Harm]

Who cares about the consequences, I'll be SAFE!

[Golmacmourna]

Our public school system sucks beyond belief.

[Rooster]

I read what you worte but you basically talk in circles and refuse to back it up with stats. That results in my arguement returning to the first points I made before as you have not refuted them with anything but your opinion.
Actually I was very careful not to repeat myself and to refute your comments individually.

If anyone was talking in circles, it would have been you.

[MickeyFinn]

Add "WIFE BEATER" "HUSBAND KILLER" and "PSYCHO" to that list too please...

I like "WIFE BEATER" and "HUSBAND KILLER", but aren't we all a little psycho? Hehe.

[Noleader]

Actually I was very careful not to repeat myself and to refute your comments individually.

If anyone was talking in circles, it would have been you.

I am not debating that... you seem to be trying to shift the debate for some reason... OH I KNOW YOU HAVE NO SOURCES FOR ALL THE CRAP YOU SPEWED IN THIS THREAD!!!!!!

[Post]

I'm just curious as to where the supports of the death penalty disagree in the details of the conclusion that the death penalty is a bad thing. I mean, I'm going to assume that no one has made their mind made up as to if it's good or bad and that it doesn't matter what the facts are, that's just the way they are. So I'm going to go through the steps as to why I personally feel the death penalty is a bad thing, and I'd like to see what steps supporters of the death penalty are wrong or flawed:

1) All other things being equal, killing someone is bad. That is, something needs to be gained in order to justify killing someone, else it's bad.
2) The inherent reason for all punishment in society is to get results to society and not just for punishment's sake. For example, if an infant does something it isn't supposed to do, you shouldn't punish them if it was a day after they did it, simply because the reason for punishment isn't for the punishment but rather, so the infant will stop (and even further, grow up to become a "better" person because of it). Since it's a day later, the infant doesn't connect the punishment to the bad thing, so it does no good to punish at that time. Same with society punishment. We want punishment to prevent bad behavior from getting to society.
3) With these things in mind, if it can be shown there isn't any benefit to society and there is nothing to be gained by punishing from life in prison to the death penalty, the death penalty is no longer justified.
4) All of the facts brought forward have shown either that the death penalty as a deterrence is no better than life without parole, or has been comparisons between time periods and not truly controlled subject areas.

Now, which ones to death supporters disagree with, so I can tell which area are we debating? All four? Just one of them? Which ones?

[Rooster]

I am not debating that... you seem to be trying to shift the debate for some reason... OH I KNOW YOU HAVE NO SOURCES FOR ALL THE CRAP YOU SPEWED IN THIS THREAD!!!!!!
I was actually debating your facts, until you chose to tell me I was talking in circles... when if I were, it would only be for following you.

If you're insane enough to not understand the breakfast thing.. and actually wanted a statistic, it's pointless - because you don't actually give a shit what I say, only the words that are typed.

Reading does not neccessarily lead to comprehension.
Just as hearing does not imply listening.

[Rooster]

1) All other things being equal, killing someone is bad. That is, something needs to be gained in order to justify killing someone, else it's bad.
False premise (that killing is bad; killing is good if you're defending yourself, or, in the case of the death penalty; defending society)
2) The inherent reason for all punishment in society is to get results to society and not just for punishment's sake. For example, if an infant does something it isn't supposed to do, you shouldn't punish them if it was a day after they did it, simply because the reason for punishment isn't for the punishment but rather, so the infant will stop (and even further, grow up to become a "better" person because of it). Since it's a day later, the infant doesn't connect the punishment to the bad thing, so it does no good to punish at that time. Same with society punishment. We want punishment to prevent bad behavior from getting to society.
Your premise (underlined) is also false. However the bold part is correct. Your analogy with a child is broken; we are not dealing with children that do not know right from wrong or someone that was truly ignorant that it was against the law (usually that would be good grounds for an insanity plea; which, if the person truly does not know right from wrong, it's a different story). We're dealing with people that make horrible, bad judgement calls and cannot be trusted in society. They have forsaken the value of life itself. We're not talking about shoplifting here.
3) With these things in mind, if it can be shown there isn't any benefit to society and there is nothing to be gained by punishing from life in prison to the death penalty, the death penalty is no longer justified.
3 is completely contingent on 1 & 2 being true, which they are not. They are opinions; not facts.
4) All of the facts brought forward have shown either that the death penalty as a deterrence is no better than life without parole, or has been comparisons between time periods and not truly controlled subject areas.
Had I the time, energy or care (to be honest), I could likely find some very juicy (accurate) comparisons of Life vs Death [sentences].
Now, which ones to death supporters disagree with, so I can tell which area are we debating? All four? Just one of them? Which ones?You only made 2 statements that were even debatable, the 3rd & 4th merely reference 1 & 2.

[Post]

"False premise (that killing is bad; killing is good if you're defending yourself, or, in the case of the death penalty; defending society)"

Hence why I stated "all other things being equal." ie, if you're not defending yourself, or defending society, then it's bad; not just "even" in terms of bad and good.

"Your premise (underlined) is also false. However the bold part is correct. Your analogy with a child is broken; we are not dealing with children that do not know right from wrong or someone that was truly ignorant that it was against the law (usually that would be good grounds for an insanity plea; which, if the person truly does not know right from wrong, it's a different story)."

Hold on. The child not knowing right from wrong at that point is why it doesn't work. The reason why punishment is useless at that point, though, is simply because nothing is gained from it. It doesn't matter if it's because they don't know right from wrong or any other reason why the punishment doesn't work. In another example, it would be like taking a toy from the child that the child doesn't care about. Even if the child understood right from wrong, the punishment is still useless because nothing is gained from it. Which is my point.

ie, punishment -> (doesn't know better) -> doesn't work.

You're showing what's in parenthesis, when in actuality, the reason why the punishment is useless is the third item. Regardless as to what's in parenthesis, or even if it isn't known, the punishment is useless if the third item is true.

"We're dealing with people that make horrible, bad judgement calls and cannot be trusted in society. They have forsaken the value of life itself. We're not talking about shoplifting here."

Well, yeah. And we're also not talking about letting them go scott-free, either. We're talking about something that takes them out of society with or without the death penalty. I'm not sure how your statement supports the death penalty any more than life without parole. It could even be stated that it indirectly supports life without parole, since while they may have forsaken life, society hasn't.

"3 is completely contingent on 1 & 2 being true, which they are not. They are opinions; not facts."

I realize the contingency. It was my point in breaking it up. Do we agree that, as long as it is shown there's no benefit to society in killing someone compared to putting them into prison for life, then we shouldn't kill them?

"Had I the time, energy or care (to be honest), I could likely find some very juicy (accurate) comparisons of Life vs Death [sentences]."

Then it's kinda unfair to give your opinion and call things wrong out on the facts if you're not going to bother to pursue the debate beyond that. I mean, we're trying to further the debate here, and without facts countering facts, you've given no more than someone else that could be making stuff up. And that's what really should be assumed if someone's unwilling to go any further than that.

"You only made 2 statements that were even debatable, the 3rd & 4th merely reference 1 & 2."

Again, that was my whole point. If we can agree on (3) and (4), then that narrows the debate down to showing (1) and (2). So do we agree that, if it were shown that there is no real-world benefit with the death penalty compared to life without parole, then the death penalty shouldn't be done?

Then we can move on to just debating about if there's societal benefit to it or not.

[Rooster]

"Do we agree that, as long as it is shown there's no benefit to society in killing someone compared to putting them into prison for life, then we shouldn't kill them?"

I believe that is the crux of the matter.

I believe they key is in determining a cost/benefit analysis for society regarding the death penalty.

Personally, I'm not sure any of us here are completely equipped, or care to invest enough time into it to adequately convince anyone (cause if they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion).

But yes, that is the question.

[Noleader]

I was actually debating your facts, until you chose to tell me I was talking in circles... when if I were, it would only be for following you.

SOURCES!!!!!

You still fail to source anything but yourself. When are you going to stop talking like you know something and actually prove it. You asked me for sources and I provided them. All you did was say my sources were wrong for whatever reason without providing sources yourself to show there error. Then to top it off you said I was wrong because "in N.C." thats not the case... and I never made comment about anything in N.C.

If you're insane enough to not understand the breakfast thing.. and actually wanted a statistic, it's pointless - because you don't actually give a shit what I say, only the words that are typed.


I understand the breakfast thing... I asked you to source something that could tie it into your arguement... When you asked me to source my stance I did without question or complaint. I also did not make a direct attack on your intelligence when you asked me to source. Sadly though you seem to only spew crap and claim it is everyone else when they ask for proof.
Reading does not neccessarily lead to comprehension.
Just as hearing does not imply listening.

Oh so true...

[Post]

"Personally, I'm not sure any of us here are completely equipped, or care to invest enough time into it to adequately convince anyone (cause if they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion).

But yes, that is the question."

Well, here's the problem, though: if it's up in the air as to if there's a benefit to it, don't you think we shouldn't kill people until that's found out? I mean, if each side has flaws and evidence to support it, don't you think there should be a decent amount of evidence to show there really is lots of good evidence to show killing people is beneficial to society?

I guess if you brought good evidence of two similar areas with similar crime rates, and seeing a noticeable difference in the crime rate once the death penalty is enacted, I'd have to question, maybe it does work (so far, the only evidence you've shown is the same area in different time periods, where practically EVERYWHERE crime issues have improved, with or without the death penalty). At the same time, though, the opposite question should be asked in the opposite direction. And if it's up in the air, we come back to the "all other things being equal" scenario. ie, the death penalty is bad.

And we haven't even begun to touch on the fact that a system ran by humans is flawed, so it's inevitable that an innocent is going to be (or has already been) killed. Period. With that in mind, shouldn't there have to be lots more of good evidence supporting the death penalty as compared to good evidence against it?