<!--quoteo(post=1590866:date=Dec 21 2006, 06:19 AM:name=Private_Coleman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Private_Coleman @ Dec 21 2006, 06:19 AM) [snapback]1590866[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The only way the money can be drained away from the death penalty is constant appeals. This is not a problem with the death penalty itself but the legal system. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1590868:date=Dec 21 2006, 06:33 AM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 06:33 AM) [snapback]1590868[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> It's not worth it because it's money that could be better spent doing things that <i>don't</i> involve killing people, like funding programs for rehabilitation, or building new, larger prisons to help with the overcrowding problem we've got going right now, for example. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1590869:date=Dec 21 2006, 06:34 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 21 2006, 06:34 AM) [snapback]1590869[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Good point Private Coleman, I overlooked that.
Take note Renegade. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1590872:date=Dec 21 2006, 06:35 AM:name=Chrono)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrono @ Dec 21 2006, 06:35 AM) [snapback]1590872[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> if the guy is dead hes not exactly crowding a prison now is he? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1590875:date=Dec 21 2006, 06:51 AM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 06:51 AM) [snapback]1590875[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> So, what, outlaw appeals for those sentenced to death? That's not in <i>any</i> way what I would call "fair" or "just". Please tell me you're not being serious. Did they have to contend with suicide bombers, civilian combatants, or child soldiers? Because we had to, and it was pretty ###### stressful, let me tell you. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Renegade, no one said outlaw appeals. The legal system needs to be changed though as noted.
If the criminal is put to death, we won't need larger prisons now, will we?
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
<!--quoteo(post=1590875:date=Dec 21 2006, 06:51 AM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 06:51 AM) [snapback]1590875[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> So, what, outlaw appeals for those sentenced to death? That's not in <i>any</i> way what I would call "fair" or "just". <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're going to send murders and or rapists etc. back into society of course you're going to keep them under constant supervision and keep track of their movements. If recordings prove that he did in fact commit the crime AGAIN, then he does not need to take any more appeals. The evidence is right there.
<!--quoteo(post=1590878:date=Dec 21 2006, 05:00 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 21 2006, 05:00 AM) [snapback]1590878[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Renegade, no one said outlaw appeals. The legal system needs to be changed though as noted.
If the criminal is put to death, we won't need larger prisons now, will we? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So why stop at murder and rape? Why not follow Singapore's example and execute people for all narcotics-related crimes, as well? I mean, if we <i>really</i> want to solve this overcrowding problem we're having, why not start making more crimes capitally punishable? Killing all those people should save us some space, right?
<!--quoteo(post=1590884:date=Dec 21 2006, 07:06 AM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 07:06 AM) [snapback]1590884[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> So why stop at murder and rape? Why not follow Singapore's example and execute people for all narcotics-related crimes, as well? I mean, if we <i>really</i> want to solve this overcrowding problem we're having, why not start making more crimes capitally punishable? Killing all those people should save us some space, right? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My answer to that has already been posted - let the punishment fit the crime, or an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
<!--quoteo(post=1590887:date=Dec 21 2006, 05:08 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 21 2006, 05:08 AM) [snapback]1590887[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> My answer to that has already been posted - let the punishment fit the crime, or an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
And besides, certain crimes lead to people being indirectly killed as a result of them. After all, the mafia can't afford the bankroll its operations if it doesn't have accountants working the books. Why not execute them for contributing indirectly for the deaths of others?
<!--quoteo(post=1590889:date=Dec 21 2006, 07:11 AM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 07:11 AM) [snapback]1590889[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
And besides, certain crimes lead to people being indirectly killed as a result of them. After all, the mafia can't afford the bankroll its operations if it doesn't have accountants working the books. Why not execute them for contributing indirectly for the deaths of others? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's obviously not a crime worthy of death, is it.
<!--quoteo(post=1590892:date=Dec 21 2006, 05:15 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 21 2006, 05:15 AM) [snapback]1590892[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That's obviously not a crime worthy of death, is it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It enables their employers to kill. They are indirectly responsible for the deaths that occur as a result of their work. Why <i>not</i> kill them?
<!--quoteo(post=1590895:date=Dec 21 2006, 07:21 AM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 07:21 AM) [snapback]1590895[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> It enables their employers to kill. They are indirectly responsible for the deaths that occur as a result of their work. Why <i>not</i> kill them? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you follow that train of thought, then the mother who mentally / physically abused her children, ultimately causing them to create crimes punishable by death, would also be "indirectly responsible"? See how this doesn't make any sense?
The legislators who created these laws are much more qualified to determine who gets executed. If you disagree with it, you have the right to try and get this changed, via legal means.
I have a theory that if all criminals were put to death we would no longer have criminals. an acceptable sacrifice would be a small percentage of innocent men falling through the cracks of the legal system and being put to death but that would be a minor price to pay to end all crime. No one would dare perform a crime if death awaits them.
and yes renagade before you ask i am being serious.
<!--quoteo(post=1590899:date=Dec 21 2006, 01:37 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 21 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]1590899[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If you follow that train of thought, then the mother who mentally / physically abused her children, ultimately causing them to create crimes punishable by death, would also be "indirectly responsible"? See how this doesn't make any sense?
The legislators who created these laws are much more qualified to determine who gets executed. If you disagree with it, you have the right to try and get this changed, via legal means. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right though, it doesn't make sense. If anything, she's <i>directly</i> responsible. But isn't that just more of an argument for executing mafia accountants?
<!--quoteo(post=1590906:date=Dec 21 2006, 07:49 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 21 2006, 07:49 AM) [snapback]1590906[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You're right though, it doesn't make sense. If anything, she's <i>directly</i> responsible. But isn't that just more of an argument for executing mafia accountants? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If the mother is not legally liable for abusing the children (as in in this example) and therefore not going to be executed, neither should the mafia accountants. Neither has commited a crime punishable by the death penalty.
<!--quoteo(post=1590899:date=Dec 21 2006, 05:37 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 21 2006, 05:37 AM) [snapback]1590899[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If you follow that train of thought, then the mother who mentally / physically abused her children, ultimately causing them to create crimes punishable by death, would also be "indirectly responsible"? See how this doesn't make any sense?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No more than you thinking it's "worth the extra dollars" to put people to death because we can't rehabilitate them/they are of no benefit to society.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The legislators who created these laws are much more qualified to determine who gets executed. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You <i>can't</i> be serious. And what, exactly, qualifies them to determine who deserves to die and who doesn't? Simply being elected? Last I checked, that wasn't a very good qualification for <i>anything</i>, let alone determining the value of human life.
<!--quoteo(post=1590900:date=Dec 21 2006, 05:37 AM:name=Chrono)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrono @ Dec 21 2006, 05:37 AM) [snapback]1590900[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I have a theory that if all criminals were put to death we would no longer have criminals. an acceptable sacrifice would be a small percentage of innocent men falling through the cracks of the legal system and being put to death but that would be a minor price to pay to end all crime. No one would dare perform a crime if death awaits them.
and yes renagade before you ask i am being serious. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't even know where to begin with this little gem. Are you <i>seriously</i> suggesting the death penalty is a viable deterrent to crime? You do realize <i>this isn't the case, and that people still continue to commit crimes regardless of the punishment that awaits them, right?</i>
There you go, from the FBI case files on the murders committed in the past decade basically it shows that the capital punishment system doesn't deter crime, at all.
Also if I see approval for the death penalty coming from the bible anymore I am going to show you where it states it is not approved and then you can stop quoting a horrible source for any moral guide ever, especially in the part that is over 3,000 yrs old. (BTW, your church condemns the use of the old testament as a viable moral guide)
*Edit*
Tables are a lot harder to do on the new forums then the old ones. *cry*
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited December 2006
You can argue that the death penalty is a direct consequence of the high murder rate, and not the other way around. But it seems atleast according to your graph is has no effect, so detterence be damned.
Interesting enough, what has caused the murder rates to fall so substanstial in the last decade?
<!--quoteo(post=1590900:date=Dec 21 2006, 01:37 PM:name=Chrono)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrono @ Dec 21 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]1590900[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I have a theory that if all criminals were put to death we would no longer have criminals. an acceptable sacrifice would be a small percentage of innocent men falling through the cracks of the legal system and being put to death but that would be a minor price to pay to end all crime. No one would dare perform a crime if death awaits them.
and yes renagade before you ask i am being serious. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1590910:date=Dec 21 2006, 02:08 PM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 02:08 PM) [snapback]1590910[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]I don't even know where to begin with this little gem. Are you <i>seriously</i> suggesting the death penalty is a viable deterrent to crime? You do realize <i>this isn't the case, and that people still continue to commit crimes regardless of the punishment that awaits them, right?</i> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, yes he's seriously suggesting that. Or at least that's what he claims. In fact, he's seriously suggesting to apply the death penalty to any crime. Like, rob a liquor store, BAM, death penalty.
The justification that "if all criminals were put to death we would no longer have criminals" is monumentally flawed. It's as if a doctor would offer to amputate your leg to cure your ingrown toenail. It is assuming that criminals, ANY and ALL criminals have completely fallen out of society and are a mere menace, nothing more.
As a good, innocent citizen, I would not want to live in a society like that. And not just because of the risk of getting sentenced to death due to a misunderstanding, or inadvertently committing a crime. But let us assume that drug addict, in order to finance his next dose, steals my stereo to peddle it. It is abhorrent to me to think that he would get sentenced to death for this. In such a case, I would, in court, out of <i>empathy</i>, FALSELY TESTIFY <i>(thus committing a crime and putting myself at risk of summary execution if discovered)</i> that I gave him permission to break the lock on my front door and take my television. More likely is that I would have fled the country the day legislation like this was passed. If someone steals my stereo to finance his next drug dose, I want him prosecuted. I want my stereo back, I want him fined or confined, and I want him placed into rehab so he can get off whatever nasty substance he is pumping himself with and can get on with his life. I do NOT want him killed for such a mundane crime. A society that would take a man's life away from him for such a mundane reason and have the gall to call it <i>justice</i> is <i>monstrous.</i>
<!--quoteo(post=1590919:date=Dec 21 2006, 08:52 AM:name=Epidemic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Epidemic @ Dec 21 2006, 08:52 AM) [snapback]1590919[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You can argue that the death penalty is a direct consequence of the high murder rate, and not the other way around. But it seems atleast according to your graph is has no effect, so detterence be damned.
Interesting enough, what has caused the murder rates to fall so substanstial in the last decade? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently they are attributing economic success along with falling drug use, and oddly enough many states enacting a civilian concealed weapons program...
The death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1591096:date=Dec 22 2006, 12:59 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 22 2006, 12:59 AM) [snapback]1591096[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Technically they won't commit crimes, inside of prison anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1591100:date=Dec 21 2006, 08:13 PM:name=Revlic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Revlic @ Dec 21 2006, 08:13 PM) [snapback]1591100[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Technically they won't commit crimes, inside of prison anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A> Certainly they can. B> All sentences are not for life.
<!--quoteo(post=1591096:date=Dec 21 2006, 05:59 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 21 2006, 05:59 PM) [snapback]1591096[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, it doesn't. <i>This has been shown time and time again. Stop ignoring the facts.</i>
life in a small box with zero chance of release: pros: - subject dies - - in a long time - - alone - offers option of ctrl+z cons: - not space effective - possibility of escape
electric chair/injection/snu pros: - subject dies - - now cons: - no undo - subject has a final audience - can fail
various sources state various figures for the cost of an execution vs life imprisonment.
<!--quoteo(post=1591096:date=Dec 21 2006, 07:59 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 21 2006, 07:59 PM) [snapback]1591096[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1591143:date=Dec 21 2006, 10:59 PM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 10:59 PM) [snapback]1591143[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <!--quoteo(post=1591096:date=Dec 21 2006, 07:59 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 21 2006, 07:59 PM) [snapback]1591096[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, it doesn't. <i>This has been shown time and time again. Stop ignoring the facts.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quote the <b>ENTIRE</b> text for accuracy please. "For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes."
From Merriam Webster Online, <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Main Entry: de·ter Pronunciation: di-'t&r, dE- Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): de·terred; de·ter·ring Etymology: Latin deterrEre, from de- + terrEre to frighten -- more at TERROR 1 : to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting <she would not be deterred by threats> 2 : INHIBIT <painting to deter rust> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Seems to me that by giving a criminal the death penalty, we are preventing that very criminal from repeat offending, or "prevent from acting". Deter does not have to apply to others - it can apply to ones self too. By the way, <i>Webster's Dictionary</i> includes "make to abstain (from)".
<b>If the criminal's dead, he's "made to abstain from" future repeated crimes.</b>
Apparently certain people are too dense to realize that it doesn't deter anyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want to argue semantics, they won't be around to commit crimes if they are locked up forever either. Your logical skills are sadly lacking and I haven't seen any evidence on your side that says capital punishment is justifiable in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, so how about providing facts and not biased opinion.
Oh wait, you can't do that as that would be against your "faith".
<!--quoteo(post=1591227:date=Dec 22 2006, 07:48 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 22 2006, 07:48 AM) [snapback]1591227[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> No, it doesn't. <i>This has been shown time and time again. Stop ignoring the facts.</i>
Quote the <b>ENTIRE</b> text for accuracy please. "For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes."
From Merriam Webster Online,
Seems to me that by giving a criminal the death penalty, we are preventing that very criminal from repeat offending, or "prevent from acting". Deter does not have to apply to others - it can apply to ones self too. By the way, <i>Webster's Dictionary</i> includes "make to abstain (from)".
<b>If the criminal's dead, he's "made to abstain from" future repeated crimes.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whats the difference if he kills someone or someone kills him, you wont have gained any lives by executing him unless he would kill several others in prison but the amount of people who dont kill again would probably even it out.
Since you think his life is less worth i guess its justifiable for you.
Marik_SteeleTo rule in hell...Join Date: 2002-11-20Member: 9466Members
<!--quoteo(post=1591255:date=Dec 22 2006, 09:18 AM:name=Lanfear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lanfear @ Dec 22 2006, 09:18 AM) [snapback]1591255[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Apparently certain people are too dense to realize that it doesn't deter anyone. If you want to argue semantics, they won't be around to commit crimes if they are locked up forever either. Your logical skills are sadly lacking and I haven't seen any evidence on your side that says capital punishment is justifiable in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, so how about providing facts and not biased opinion.
Oh wait, you can't do that as that would be against your "faith". <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The most professional line in your post was "I haven't seen any evidence on your side[...]any circumstance." Too much of the rest was the sort of aggressive writing that can and *will* earn you a restriction from the discussion forums.
I understand this hasn't been your 1st time, and if that's the case then 1 week won't suffice. I'm about to ask fellow staff members for their suggestions on duration.
<!--quoteo(post=1591255:date=Dec 22 2006, 09:18 AM:name=Lanfear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lanfear @ Dec 22 2006, 09:18 AM) [snapback]1591255[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Apparently certain people are too dense to realize that it doesn't deter anyone. If you want to argue semantics, they won't be around to commit crimes if they are locked up forever either. Your logical skills are sadly lacking and I haven't seen any evidence on your side that says capital punishment is justifiable in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, so how about providing facts and not biased opinion.
Oh wait, you can't do that as that would be against your "faith". <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nowhere does it say the criminals are to be sentenced to life. The parole system is weak and often exploited. I maintain society should remove these criminals so they will no longer be a burden on society <b>OR</b> the prison system, no matter the cost.
Why does anyone need "evidence" that capital punishment is justifiable? If "the punishment fits the crime" why should a serial killer <b>NOT</b> be put to death? If a repeat offender is convicted for a serious crime and is obviously beyond rehabilitation, why does he deserve to live, and why should the taxpayers provide him free room and board?
According to my statistics 38 states have death penalty statutes. I am proud to live in one of them, Florida.
Because it seems that providing him with room and board for the rest of his life is cheaper than having him executed. Why would the tax payers care whether he lives or dies if they can save money? If asked, I wouldn't be willing to pay money to kill someone who's going to rot in prison for the rest of his life otherwise.
That seems to be one of the best arguments against the death penalty - the cost of it including numerous appeals etc. But as already noted this could be remedied by re-working the judicial system.
Comments
The only way the money can be drained away from the death penalty is constant appeals. This is not a problem with the death penalty itself but the legal system.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1590868:date=Dec 21 2006, 06:33 AM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 06:33 AM) [snapback]1590868[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
It's not worth it because it's money that could be better spent doing things that <i>don't</i> involve killing people, like funding programs for rehabilitation, or building new, larger prisons to help with the overcrowding problem we've got going right now, for example.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1590869:date=Dec 21 2006, 06:34 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 21 2006, 06:34 AM) [snapback]1590869[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Good point Private Coleman, I overlooked that.
Take note Renegade. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1590872:date=Dec 21 2006, 06:35 AM:name=Chrono)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrono @ Dec 21 2006, 06:35 AM) [snapback]1590872[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
if the guy is dead hes not exactly crowding a prison now is he?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1590875:date=Dec 21 2006, 06:51 AM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 06:51 AM) [snapback]1590875[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
So, what, outlaw appeals for those sentenced to death? That's not in <i>any</i> way what I would call "fair" or "just".
Please tell me you're not being serious.
Did they have to contend with suicide bombers, civilian combatants, or child soldiers? Because we had to, and it was pretty ###### stressful, let me tell you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Renegade, no one said outlaw appeals. The legal system needs to be changed though as noted.
If the criminal is put to death, we won't need larger prisons now, will we?
So, what, outlaw appeals for those sentenced to death? That's not in <i>any</i> way what I would call "fair" or "just".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're going to send murders and or rapists etc. back into society of course you're going to keep them under constant supervision and keep track of their movements. If recordings prove that he did in fact commit the crime AGAIN, then he does not need to take any more appeals. The evidence is right there.
Right. Bed.
Renegade, no one said outlaw appeals. The legal system needs to be changed though as noted.
If the criminal is put to death, we won't need larger prisons now, will we?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why stop at murder and rape? Why not follow Singapore's example and execute people for all narcotics-related crimes, as well? I mean, if we <i>really</i> want to solve this overcrowding problem we're having, why not start making more crimes capitally punishable? Killing all those people should save us some space, right?
So why stop at murder and rape? Why not follow Singapore's example and execute people for all narcotics-related crimes, as well? I mean, if we <i>really</i> want to solve this overcrowding problem we're having, why not start making more crimes capitally punishable? Killing all those people should save us some space, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My answer to that has already been posted - let the punishment fit the crime, or an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
My answer to that has already been posted - let the punishment fit the crime, or an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
And besides, certain crimes lead to people being indirectly killed as a result of them. After all, the mafia can't afford the bankroll its operations if it doesn't have accountants working the books. Why not execute them for contributing indirectly for the deaths of others?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
And besides, certain crimes lead to people being indirectly killed as a result of them. After all, the mafia can't afford the bankroll its operations if it doesn't have accountants working the books. Why not execute them for contributing indirectly for the deaths of others?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's obviously not a crime worthy of death, is it.
That's obviously not a crime worthy of death, is it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It enables their employers to kill. They are indirectly responsible for the deaths that occur as a result of their work. Why <i>not</i> kill them?
It enables their employers to kill. They are indirectly responsible for the deaths that occur as a result of their work. Why <i>not</i> kill them?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you follow that train of thought, then the mother who mentally / physically abused her children, ultimately causing them to create crimes punishable by death, would also be "indirectly responsible"? See how this doesn't make any sense?
The legislators who created these laws are much more qualified to determine who gets executed. If you disagree with it, you have the right to try and get this changed, via legal means.
an acceptable sacrifice would be a small percentage of innocent men falling through the cracks of the legal system and being put to death but that would be a minor price to pay to end all crime. No one would dare perform a crime if death awaits them.
and yes renagade before you ask i am being serious.
If you follow that train of thought, then the mother who mentally / physically abused her children, ultimately causing them to create crimes punishable by death, would also be "indirectly responsible"? See how this doesn't make any sense?
The legislators who created these laws are much more qualified to determine who gets executed. If you disagree with it, you have the right to try and get this changed, via legal means.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right though, it doesn't make sense. If anything, she's <i>directly</i> responsible. But isn't that just more of an argument for executing mafia accountants?
You're right though, it doesn't make sense. If anything, she's <i>directly</i> responsible. But isn't that just more of an argument for executing mafia accountants?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the mother is not legally liable for abusing the children (as in in this example) and therefore not going to be executed, neither should the mafia accountants. Neither has commited a crime punishable by the death penalty.
If you follow that train of thought, then the mother who mentally / physically abused her children, ultimately causing them to create crimes punishable by death, would also be "indirectly responsible"? See how this doesn't make any sense?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No more than you thinking it's "worth the extra dollars" to put people to death because we can't rehabilitate them/they are of no benefit to society.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The legislators who created these laws are much more qualified to determine who gets executed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You <i>can't</i> be serious. And what, exactly, qualifies them to determine who deserves to die and who doesn't? Simply being elected? Last I checked, that wasn't a very good qualification for <i>anything</i>, let alone determining the value of human life.
<!--quoteo(post=1590900:date=Dec 21 2006, 05:37 AM:name=Chrono)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrono @ Dec 21 2006, 05:37 AM) [snapback]1590900[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I have a theory that if all criminals were put to death we would no longer have criminals.
an acceptable sacrifice would be a small percentage of innocent men falling through the cracks of the legal system and being put to death but that would be a minor price to pay to end all crime. No one would dare perform a crime if death awaits them.
and yes renagade before you ask i am being serious.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't even know where to begin with this little gem. Are you <i>seriously</i> suggesting the death penalty is a viable deterrent to crime? You do realize <i>this isn't the case, and that people still continue to commit crimes regardless of the punishment that awaits them, right?</i>
[url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168] Death Penalty Deterrence
<!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1-->
Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murder 9.50 9.94 9.51 9.69 9.23 8.59 7.72 7.09 6.51 5.86 5.70 5.82 5.82 5.91 5.71 5.87
rate
in
Death states
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murder 9.16 9.27 8.63 8.81 7.88 6.78 7.37 5.00 4.61 4.59 4.25 4.25 4.27 4.10 4.02 4.03
rate in
non-death
states
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
There you go, from the FBI case files on the murders committed in the past decade basically it shows that the capital punishment system doesn't deter crime, at all.
Also if I see approval for the death penalty coming from the bible anymore I am going to show you where it states it is not approved and then you can stop quoting a horrible source for any moral guide ever, especially in the part that is over 3,000 yrs old. (BTW, your church condemns the use of the old testament as a viable moral guide)
*Edit*
Tables are a lot harder to do on the new forums then the old ones. *cry*
Interesting enough, what has caused the murder rates to fall so substanstial in the last decade?
I have a theory that if all criminals were put to death we would no longer have criminals.
an acceptable sacrifice would be a small percentage of innocent men falling through the cracks of the legal system and being put to death but that would be a minor price to pay to end all crime. No one would dare perform a crime if death awaits them.
and yes renagade before you ask i am being serious.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1590910:date=Dec 21 2006, 02:08 PM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 02:08 PM) [snapback]1590910[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
[...]I don't even know where to begin with this little gem. Are you <i>seriously</i> suggesting the death penalty is a viable deterrent to crime? You do realize <i>this isn't the case, and that people still continue to commit crimes regardless of the punishment that awaits them, right?</i>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, yes he's seriously suggesting that. Or at least that's what he claims. In fact, he's seriously suggesting to apply the death penalty to any crime. Like, rob a liquor store, BAM, death penalty.
The justification that "if all criminals were put to death we would no longer have criminals" is monumentally flawed. It's as if a doctor would offer to amputate your leg to cure your ingrown toenail. It is assuming that criminals, ANY and ALL criminals have completely fallen out of society and are a mere menace, nothing more.
As a good, innocent citizen, I would not want to live in a society like that. And not just because of the risk of getting sentenced to death due to a misunderstanding, or inadvertently committing a crime.
But let us assume that drug addict, in order to finance his next dose, steals my stereo to peddle it. It is abhorrent to me to think that he would get sentenced to death for this. In such a case, I would, in court, out of <i>empathy</i>, FALSELY TESTIFY <i>(thus committing a crime and putting myself at risk of summary execution if discovered)</i> that I gave him permission to break the lock on my front door and take my television. More likely is that I would have fled the country the day legislation like this was passed.
If someone steals my stereo to finance his next drug dose, I want him prosecuted. I want my stereo back, I want him fined or confined, and I want him placed into rehab so he can get off whatever nasty substance he is pumping himself with and can get on with his life. I do NOT want him killed for such a mundane crime.
A society that would take a man's life away from him for such a mundane reason and have the gall to call it <i>justice</i> is <i>monstrous.</i>
You can argue that the death penalty is a direct consequence of the high murder rate, and not the other way around. But it seems atleast according to your graph is has no effect, so detterence be damned.
Interesting enough, what has caused the murder rates to fall so substanstial in the last decade?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently they are attributing economic success along with falling drug use, and oddly enough many states enacting a civilian concealed weapons program...
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june00/crime_5-08.html" target="_blank">Falling Serious Crime Rates</a>
Criminals who get killed being criminals don't count as homicides, simply, pest extermination.
The death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Technically they won't commit crimes, inside of prison anyway.
Technically they won't commit crimes, inside of prison anyway.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A> Certainly they can.
B> All sentences are not for life.
The death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it doesn't. <i>This has been shown time and time again. Stop ignoring the facts.</i>
Give you a hint, it's not a dividable number.
pros:
- subject dies
- - in a long time
- - alone
- offers option of ctrl+z
cons:
- not space effective
- possibility of escape
electric chair/injection/snu
pros:
- subject dies
- - now
cons:
- no undo
- subject has a final audience
- can fail
various sources state various figures for the cost of an execution vs life imprisonment.
The death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1591143:date=Dec 21 2006, 10:59 PM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 21 2006, 10:59 PM) [snapback]1591143[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<!--quoteo(post=1591096:date=Dec 21 2006, 07:59 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 21 2006, 07:59 PM) [snapback]1591096[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it doesn't. <i>This has been shown time and time again. Stop ignoring the facts.</i>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quote the <b>ENTIRE</b> text for accuracy please. "For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes."
From Merriam Webster Online,
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Main Entry: de·ter
Pronunciation: di-'t&r, dE-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·terred; de·ter·ring
Etymology: Latin deterrEre, from de- + terrEre to frighten -- more at TERROR
1 : to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting <she would not be deterred by threats>
2 : INHIBIT <painting to deter rust> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems to me that by giving a criminal the death penalty, we are preventing that very criminal from repeat offending, or "prevent from acting". Deter does not have to apply to others - it can apply to ones self too. By the way, <i>Webster's Dictionary</i> includes "make to abstain (from)".
<b>If the criminal's dead, he's "made to abstain from" future repeated crimes.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want to argue semantics, they won't be around to commit crimes if they are locked up forever either. Your logical skills are sadly lacking and I haven't seen any evidence on your side that says capital punishment is justifiable in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, so how about providing facts and not biased opinion.
Oh wait, you can't do that as that would be against your "faith".
No, it doesn't. <i>This has been shown time and time again. Stop ignoring the facts.</i>
Quote the <b>ENTIRE</b> text for accuracy please. "For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes."
From Merriam Webster Online,
Seems to me that by giving a criminal the death penalty, we are preventing that very criminal from repeat offending, or "prevent from acting". Deter does not have to apply to others - it can apply to ones self too. By the way, <i>Webster's Dictionary</i> includes "make to abstain (from)".
<b>If the criminal's dead, he's "made to abstain from" future repeated crimes.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats the difference if he kills someone or someone kills him, you wont have gained any lives by executing him unless he would kill several others in prison but the amount of people who dont kill again would probably even it out.
Since you think his life is less worth i guess its justifiable for you.
Apparently certain people are too dense to realize that it doesn't deter anyone.
If you want to argue semantics, they won't be around to commit crimes if they are locked up forever either. Your logical skills are sadly lacking and I haven't seen any evidence on your side that says capital punishment is justifiable in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, so how about providing facts and not biased opinion.
Oh wait, you can't do that as that would be against your "faith".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The most professional line in your post was "I haven't seen any evidence on your side[...]any circumstance." Too much of the rest was the sort of aggressive writing that can and *will* earn you a restriction from the discussion forums.
I understand this hasn't been your 1st time, and if that's the case then 1 week won't suffice. I'm about to ask fellow staff members for their suggestions on duration.
Apparently certain people are too dense to realize that it doesn't deter anyone.
If you want to argue semantics, they won't be around to commit crimes if they are locked up forever either. Your logical skills are sadly lacking and I haven't seen any evidence on your side that says capital punishment is justifiable in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, so how about providing facts and not biased opinion.
Oh wait, you can't do that as that would be against your "faith".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nowhere does it say the criminals are to be sentenced to life. The parole system is weak and often exploited. I maintain society should remove these criminals so they will no longer be a burden on society <b>OR</b> the prison system, no matter the cost.
Why does anyone need "evidence" that capital punishment is justifiable? If "the punishment fits the crime" why should a serial killer <b>NOT</b> be put to death? If a repeat offender is convicted for a serious crime and is obviously beyond rehabilitation, why does he deserve to live, and why should the taxpayers provide him free room and board?
According to my statistics 38 states have death penalty statutes. I am proud to live in one of them, Florida.
=======================================================================
<i>Off topic</i> - 5000 posts = w00tage! <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/taz.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />