Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/24/07 04:28 PM, EKublai wrote:

stuff

Riiiiiight. So if you were told that you were going to be shredded to death in a meat grinder, you would be equally as scared as if you were told you were getting lethal injection. Sorry but that is bullshit.

Three arguements for the death penalty

1) You can't escape from death
2) You can't appeal after death
3) You can't work the system if your dead

It is absolute and makes sure the convicted don't work their way out of jail so they don't kill etc. again

Honesty after you undoubtedly kill or rape someone I don't care about your rights anymore

You can't say that anybody who kills somebody is a cold blooded murderer that deserves to die. That is looking too black and white on the situation. Many murders can happen as accidents, when the person is still at fault (thus it counts as murder). Getting drunk and driving a car into somebody because you couldn't see him can hardly put you in the same group as an psychopath that kills people for fun.

At 11/21/07 01:58 PM, Gunter45 wrote: First of all, the death penalty is more expensive than putting someone in prison for life. The unlimited appeals process really ties up a lot of money in court costs.

I really wanna see the figures you're pulling there - prison bills cost around £5,000 per year, given on how well the prisoner is living, which adds up to £125,000 over a period of 25 years - how much does sodium pentathol cost? You have to go through the expensive court proceedings to prove a man's guilt anyway - I'm pretty sure appeals don't exceed the hundreds of thousands unless there's a serious doubt of the person's guilt or they're incredibly rich.

Politicians here in Britain (where prison overcrowding is reaching crisis point) might beg to differ as well - the cost of a guillotine would be infinately cheaper than the cost of a multi-billion pound structure to be created...

Secondly, it's a decision that is irreversible. Once you execute someone, there is no way that you can take it back. The day that we have irrefutable proof that we executed an innocent man is the day capital punishment is going to be turned on its head. Besides, what do you do in such a case? Technically, that would be constituted as murder, so do you jail the judge that sentenced him to death and then every judge who failed to overturn the conviction?

A judge is effectively an employee of the government, employed to look at all the evidence and
judge whether or not the defendant is guilty. Someone like that cannot be held accountable for his actions if he is working on the behalf of the government - it's like a doctor making misdiagnosing a patient due to an imperfect X-ray. One time is just a law suit :P, 20 times he's a failed doctor and must be removed. If a judge was repeatedly found to have sentenced innocent men to jail on insufficient evidence then he would be reprimanded. The British National Party in Britain (shocker) want to re-legalise the dealth penalty for murders, paedophiles etc if their guilt can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt eg DNA evidence (One of the very few policies of theirs that I agree on)

What I think you're talking about here is the one-in-a-million chance, otherwise known as Chance/Luck. Is it not worth one innocent man's life to deter dozens of murders that may well have killed an innocent person each themselves if the death penalty was not instated?

At 11/21/07 02:03 PM, TonyTostieno wrote: Then again they should have more then one form of execution. For the generic death penalty have the guillotine or a bullet in the head or something, just make sure it kills them off quickly and cheaply. After that, the worse the person is the more painful the execution should be.

You can't really say that these methods are painless and quick if you haven't gone through them yourselves can you? Numerous "tests" have indicated that many criminals that have be guillotined do indeed feel pain and react accordingly after being beheaded.

At 11/21/07 11:39 PM, notsneaky wrote: the way i see it is that there are 2 types of punishment the good punishment is where the guy learns a lesson or regrets what he did like a life sentence if you give them the death penalty what can they learn for the future nothing the just die of course but there are exceptions like hitler

Wow - perhaps the most intelligent post on the thread. Honestly. That is a pretty good idea on how to exercise the death penalty - the chessboard killer for instance, deserves to be killed a lot more than a man who, perhaps under the influence of alcohol/drugs, killed the love of his life in a fight. The latter would show incredible remorse, perhaps for the rest of his life, and strive to correct his wrong-doing. Though, on the other hand, perhaps the sentences should be flipped - the former is sentenced to life in prison to rot without a quick way out, wheras the latter is given a charity card, so to speak.

At 11/24/07 05:09 PM, Drakim wrote: You can't say that anybody who kills somebody is a cold blooded murderer that deserves to die. That is looking too black and white on the situation. Many murders can happen as accidents, when the person is still at fault (thus it counts as murder). Getting drunk and driving a car into somebody because you couldn't see him can hardly put you in the same group as an psychopath that kills people for fun.

Thatswhat degrees of murder and the charge of manslaughter is for. Most of the executed murderers are probably 1st degree of murder or multiple murders. Manslaughter last time I checked is up to 7 years i think (don't quote me on that, the idea is that the penalty is less harsh.

At 11/24/07 05:09 PM, Drakim wrote: You can't say that anybody who kills somebody is a cold blooded murderer that deserves to die. That is looking too black and white on the situation.

Right, and I agree, I'm not saying that people who kill someone who abused them deserve to be executed, but then I wouldn't call all killings murders either.

Getting drunk and driving a car into somebody because you couldn't see him can hardly put you in the same group as an psychopath that kills people for fun.

In that particular case, because of how well known the dangers of drunk driving are, I would argue that it's pretty damned close to being as bad.

At 11/24/07 04:46 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/24/07 04:28 PM, EKublai wrote:

stuff

Riiiiiight. So if you were told that you were going to be shredded to death in a meat grinder, you would be equally as scared as if you were told you were getting lethal injection. Sorry but that is bullshit.

....k though logical thinking might not be your calling, i suppose to some extent you have an insignificantly minuscule fraction of a point there. If a killer were to be asked before his execution whether he would choose the meat grinder or lethal injection. Obviously he would choose lethal injection.

But in all other cases, and i'm putting particular emphasis in the situations before the murder has taken place, no one is going to care at that point how they will be executed because murderers that think logically don't put value into consequences. There are two paths "I kill someone and get caught, die" or "I kill someone, and get myself out of the responsibility somehow" Especially unpremeditated murders, no one is thinking about the details of consequence. Plus, and I'm not speaking from experience, I'm sure premeditated murderers don't take much stock in the details of the consequences since they're under enough stress in following through on the crime itself.

the Death Penalty is expensive and useless. It's been proven over and over that those who commit crimes do not think about the consequences. Life imprisonment is less expensive and we can get some community service out of it.

At 11/24/07 04:44 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/24/07 04:10 PM, Euroc wrote:

While lethal injection is normally painless, the execution is not the punishment. The punishment comes by not being allowed to be alive anymore. Society has basically said that you do not deserve to live anymore. So it really doesn't matter how the sentence is executed (heh-heh)

Well actually it does. If given a choice between a quick painless death, and life in a hellish prison, quite a few would choose the former. And that's the problem. This is not necessarily the case when faced with the penalty of a much more horrifying, agonizing death.

I think thats just your speculation... I would be interested in any surveys you have to back up the idea that inmates would rather die than go to prison... or are you saying the current penal system is too soft?

At 11/24/07 07:52 PM, EKublai wrote:

....k though logical thinking might not be your calling

You are making a petty, childish, unsubstantiated personal attack, and it is erroneous.

But in all other cases, and i'm putting particular emphasis in the situations before the murder has taken place, no one is going to care at that point how they will be executed because murderers that think logically don't put value into consequences.

Oh right, logical thinking involves throwing out the consequencies and acting irrationally, not at all factoring in what might happen to you when you do stuff, right.

Anyway, you are contradicting yourself. You say they have the ability to factor in that they will be killed, but just not how it'll happen until it's about to. That not only doesn't make sense, but it's a direct contradiction to order itself. If consequences did not deter crime, than murder rates would not decrease when anarchy goes away, but they do. So naturally, the harshness of the penalties would also be a factor.

I mean assuming that the harshness of a penalty doesn't factor is assuming people are not deterred by being locked up for life any more than they are a slap on the rest. And yes that example was extreme, I am sure that you will draw a radical, erroneous conclusion from what I've said, nonetheless the point stands. Penalty harshness does count for deterrence.

I'm not speaking from experience,

No surprise there.

At 11/24/07 11:12 PM, Euroc wrote:

I think thats just your speculation

What you think is irrelevant.

I would be interested in any surveys you have to back up the idea that inmates would rather die than go to prison

While I'll admit I've never seen such a survey, how else would you explain states that practice lethal injection having a higher murder rate?

or are you saying the current penal system is too soft?

Yes and no. I think, "Cruel and unusual" has been abused to hell and back, making it so sick fucks who kill people in unimaginably horrible ways don't get what they deserve. But i do think at the same time that it is rather excellent at reducing sentences where it's warranted.

At 11/24/07 04:28 PM, EKublai wrote:
I guarantee you that when someone is contemplating killing someone, there are not at all concerned by the method of their own execution as a consequence of their actions. The notion of dying at all should have the deterrent effect that the advocates claim is there.

Bull Fucking Shit
You guarantee? What the fuck? Who are you?

woops there goes all credibility.

At 11/25/07 12:23 AM, therealsylvos wrote:
Bull Fucking Shit
You guarantee? What the fuck? Who are you?

While Vlad the impaler is indeed a good example, en.wikipedia.org is a terrible source nonetheless. Indeed though he was feared, and this fear did deter crime.

At 11/25/07 12:19 AM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/24/07 07:52 PM, EKublai wrote:

....k though logical thinking might not be your calling

You are making a petty, childish, unsubstantiated personal attack, and it is erroneous.

you are correct, it's unfair to judge since logic is always warped by ethics (mine and yours) i apologize.

Oh right, logical thinking involves throwing out the consequencies and acting irrationally, not at all factoring in what might happen to you when you do stuff, right.

I believe you're deliberately trying to reshape sentences, so please don't. putting value to consequences does not mean that murderers don't categorize them. Of course they will be comfortable killing someone when all they would get is a slap on the wrist. If there were no disciplinary system, the only consequence a killer would have to face are the possible loved ones avenging that persons death. And if he thinks he can take them on. why stop killing at all?

Anyway, you are contradicting yourself. You say they have the ability to factor in that they will be killed, but just not how it'll happen until it's about to.

no I'm saying that the method is not part of their thinking at all, it doesn't even come into the calculations. It isn't necessary to think about since at that point all they want to make are generalizations. And when I say these people are thinking logically, all I meant was that these people have a sense of priority like others, only it's warped into either believing that resulting death is worth dying for or it's at least worth running from the law for.

If consequences did not deter crime, than murder rates would not decrease when anarchy goes away, but they do. So naturally, the harshness of the penalties would also be a factor.

Take that example of vlad the impaler. I would bet money that the deterrence of crime was not caused by the harshness of the penalties but by the efficiency of how he killed off his potential enemies. and the swiftness. Crime went down not because of the mass impalings but because he would do it so many times. And if you don't think there's a difference your wrong. just like there's a difference between amplitude and frequency of physical waves, i am much more likely to be deterred from crime if I knew that a form of capital punishment at all was my fate. Cuba is considered the safest place in the Western world, and not because of the prevalence of the death penalty, but because the cuban justice system doesn't stand for things even like porn to be a part of society. note I'm not arguing for every respect of Cuba's justice system since their prisons would most liekly be considered forms of torture in the U.S.

A Draconian system would work, absolutely, but a Draconian solution deals with crime and the discipline dealt for those crimes, and not with the intensity of the discipline.

No surprise there.

No there really isn't. I love how people feel so superior in their arguments that they nitpick the details of someone's speech and think they're strengthening their own. really charming.

At 11/25/07 02:54 AM, EKublai wrote:

I believe you're deliberately trying to reshape sentences, so please don't.

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.

Of course they will be comfortable killing someone when all they would get is a slap on the wrist. If there were no disciplinary system, the only consequence a killer would have to face are the possible loved ones avenging that persons death. And if he thinks he can take them on. why stop killing at all?

K, seems you agree that severity of punishment has an effect. But then you contradict yourself with this:

no I'm saying that the method is not part of their thinking at all, it doesn't even come into the calculations. It isn't necessary to think about since at that point all they want to make are generalizations. And when I say these people are thinking logically, all I meant was that these people have a sense of priority like others, only it's warped into either believing that resulting death is worth dying for or it's at least worth running from the law for.

You just got through agreeing that severity effects the fear of consequences, and yet you are now saying that the severity doesn't matter when it applies to the death penalty itself? I don't see how that's supposed to work. I doubt severity stops being a deterrent just because it is applied to the execution itself.

Take that example of vlad the impaler. I would bet money that the deterrence of crime was not caused by the harshness of the penalties but by the efficiency of how he killed off his potential enemies.

And you'd be wrong. A brutal turkish dictator was recorded running when he saw Vlad's forest of anally impaled people(many of which were still somewhat alive). It was a war, so it wasn't the threat of death itself that scared him, but the manner in which it would be applied.

Similarly, it is not uncommon for people to allow themselves to be convicted for not testifying against their crime rings, even when facing the death penalty. Because they'd rather die by the needle. Severity of the execution is a deterrent.

Crime went down not because of the mass impalings but because he would do it so many times.

It is true that mass enforcement was also likely a factor, but definitely not the only one.

No there really isn't. I love how people feel so superior in their arguments that they nitpick the details of someone's speech and think they're strengthening their own. really charming.

It wouldn't have happen had you not gotten arrogant yourself and personally attacked me in the first place.

I think you should have the freedom to choose whether you want to die, after being sentenced to life in prison. I think, at that point, it should be up to the prisoner. I don't think death should ever be forced on someone, but there are people in jail who should just fucking die, and they might kill someone in prison if they don't. So less the Death Penalty and more the Death Choice.

I think the death penalty should be, without fail, gladiatorial combat. And if that's not nice enough for modern society, the guillotine.

At 11/25/07 09:25 AM, Earfetish wrote: So less the Death Penalty and more the Death Choice.

I don't see the point in all the famous lifers we have in Britain trying to kill themselves, and failing, and costing us money to keep alive, when they may as well die. I don't see what benefit keeping serial paedophiles, rapists and murderers in jail until they die does, and I think any 'promotion' of crime by this 'easy way out' would be countered by the method of execution - colluseum-style combat to the death, in front of a bloodthirsty crowd of people who hate you.

But, since modern society has a big vagina, then maybe the guillotine would be both painless enough and scary enough.

At 11/25/07 12:19 AM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/24/07 11:12 PM, Euroc wrote:

I think thats just your speculation

What you think is irrelevant.

Exactly... if it a speculation that means it is what you think. And while that may make for interesting conversation, it would hardly hold up as evidence one way or another.

I would be interested in any surveys you have to back up the idea that inmates would rather die than go to prison

While I'll admit I've never seen such a survey, how else would you explain states that practice lethal injection having a higher murder rate?

Its a false correlation... states that do not have the death penalty have a mildly lower murder rate... it just has to deal with the society . The south is more violent and also has more executions. I can give you an idea of what causes the false correlation... People are creatures of their environment. If you are raised to be more violent, then chances are you will be. I'm sort of a determinist when it comes to nature vs nurture. So because the society is more violent, they have more violent crimes. To combat this added violence, the public outcries for stiffer penalties, including death. So the reason we see a spurious correlation is not because lethal injection or the death penalty causes violent crime, only because the society is more violent and the penalty really does not have a measureable affect.

or are you saying the current penal system is too soft?

Yes and no. I think, "Cruel and unusual" has been abused to hell and back, making it so sick fucks who kill people in unimaginably horrible ways don't get what they deserve. But i do think at the same time that it is rather excellent at reducing sentences where it's warranted.

While doing my research I have found instances when every one of the five death penalty methods have been both cruel and unusual. After speaking with some people, they say that perhaps a little extra pain is warranted when dealing with the people who are facing execution. However, what must be asked is if the government should ever have the right to execute its citizens.

At 11/25/07 05:48 PM, Euroc wrote:

Exactly... if it a speculation that means it is what you think. And while that may make for interesting conversation, it would hardly hold up as evidence one way or another.

Dude, you could have troubled yourself less by just saying, "I know you are but what am I." In any case, your presupposition that it was just speculation is erroneous. You may think that your strawman response suffices for evidence of your point, but it does not.

Its a false correlation... states that do not have the death penalty have a mildly lower murder rate... it just has to deal with the society .

No, it's not slight. Did you pay no attention whatsoever to what elfer posted?

While doing my research I have found instances when every one of the five death penalty methods have been both cruel and unusual. After speaking with some people, they say that perhaps a little extra pain is warranted when dealing with the people who are facing execution. However, what must be asked is if the government should ever have the right to execute its citizens.

The question is, why not? If the crime warrants execution, why shouldn't that sentence be carried out?

At 11/25/07 09:41 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/25/07 05:48 PM, Euroc wrote:

Exactly... if it a speculation that means it is what you think. And while that may make for interesting conversation, it would hardly hold up as evidence one way or another.

Dude, you could have troubled yourself less by just saying, "I know you are but what am I." In any case, your presupposition that it was just speculation is erroneous. You may think that your strawman response suffices for evidence of your point, but it does not.

You offer no facts that inmates would rather have their life ended than spend lwop in prison! That is why I say you were speculation on an idea, rather than anything that had any merit... such as a survey of prisoners that was legitimate. And even if such a survey existed, it would likely be schewed by prisoners who only answer knowing that they will not really be put to death. Perhaps a better question could be posed to inmates on death row on whether or not they would rather be lwopers than be executed. And dont forget, you started this nitpicking by saying it didn't matter what i think, even though you stated an opinion disguised as a fact that can not be verified (unless you have found some more information) I am not building a defense for a position here... I am merely probing yours.

Its a false correlation... states that do not have the death penalty have a mildly lower murder rate... it just has to deal with the society .

No, it's not slight. Did you pay no attention whatsoever to what elfer posted?

It is slight by percentage wise... I believe it is about 2 percent lower.

While doing my research I have found instances when every one of the five death penalty methods have been both cruel and unusual. After speaking with some people, they say that perhaps a little extra pain is warranted when dealing with the people who are facing execution. However, what must be asked is if the government should ever have the right to execute its citizens.

The question is, why not? If the crime warrants execution, why shouldn't that sentence be carried out?

And where does it stop? Right now its murder with aggrivated circumstances (in most states, but it varies) But what if it moves on to child molesters. And then to rapists. And then to thieves. And then to religious minorities... et cetera.

Think thats a ridiculous stretch? Maybe. Look up the Draconian Laws in 7th century bc. Or English law from the 16th to 18th century and how many crimes were punishable by death... Its not the number that concerns me.... its the growth of that number. If there is one thing Ive learned, its that when power is given it is not easily taken back. I'm just not sure if the govt should have the power to execute its citizens... thats all.

At 11/25/07 10:20 PM, Euroc wrote:

You offer no facts that inmates would rather have their life ended than spend lwop in prison! That is why I say you were speculation on an idea,

K, first, quote only what I said, not what you said before it.

2nd, while the survey does not exist(prisoners don't get surveyed about their punishments), I not only have known people who've been in prison and say they'd prefer lethal injection, but it's also supported by the fact that states with the death penalty have a hgher murder rate.

It is slight by percentage wise... I believe it is about 2 percent lower.

This is nothing more than you commiting another strawman fallacy. Pay attention to elfer's post again.

And where does it stop?

Where it's no longer warranted, obviously.

Think thats a ridiculous stretch? Maybe. Look up the Draconian Laws in 7th century bc. Or English law from the 16th to 18th century and how many crimes were punishable by death... Its not the number that concerns me.... its the growth of that number. If there is one thing Ive learned, its that when power is given it is not easily taken back. I'm just not sure if the govt should have the power to execute its citizens... thats all.

You are comparing apples and oranges. The old europian tryants were power mad to begin with. You are erroneously assuming that they only expanded their death penalty offenses, and not all offenses in general.

At 11/25/07 10:45 PM, JerkClock wrote:

K, first, quote only what I said, not what you said before it.

Yessir boss... I be good from now on, sir boss...

2nd, while the survey does not exist(prisoners don't get surveyed about their punishments), I not only have known people who've been in prison and say they'd prefer lethal injection, but it's also supported by the fact that states with the death penalty have a hgher murder rate.

So what? If you know two people who would rather have been executed than spend time in prison, does that make a majority? What about the countless that you may or may not know? Or the ones who may or may not exist? For all you really know, you may be completely right or 100 percent wrong. Without anything more than a couple of buddies and their statements what do you have? And thats on par with the person who says "I would have taken that bullet if I were there..." Bull shit! Once the person/people you know are strapped to the gurney with a saline iv pumping then they have the right to say they can make the decision legitimatly.

This is nothing more than you commiting another strawman fallacy. Pay attention to elfer's post again.

Wrong... This is not a strawman argument. My point is legitimate and the correlation between lethal injection as a death penalty and the murder rate is spurious. Heres why: Explain Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, Wyoming, Oregon, New Hampshire, and a half dozen others all with murder rates well below the national average. (Right around 1 or 2 per 100,000) All of these states have Lethal injection and have very low murder rates. Plus, all but one State (Nebraska) offer lethal injection as a form of exectution. South Dakota is lower than any other state in the U.S. (1 per 100,000) Its even lower than any of the non-death penalty states!

Where it's no longer warranted, obviously.

And who draws that line?

You are comparing apples and oranges. The old europian tryants were power mad to begin with. You are erroneously assuming that they only expanded their death penalty offenses, and not all offenses in general.

It may be apples to oranges, but consider William the Conqueror... He abolished all forms of execution for crime in the 10th century. It was reinstated in the 16th century and the number of crimes PUNISHABLE by DEATH continued to grow until the 1700s when jurors refused to convict someone to death for a petty crime.

At 11/25/07 11:24 PM, Euroc wrote:
Yessir boss... I be good from now on, sir boss...

Good, you are learning your place I see.

So what? If you know two people who would rather have been executed than spend time in prison, does that make a majority? What about the countless that you may or may not know? Or the ones who may or may not exist?

I've known quite a bit more than 2. I lived in the ghetto for around 2 years, quite a few people I got to know had been to prison. Even a survey would not have responces from every single potential murderer in existence, but more a small sample of 10000 at most.

Anyways, I noticed you deliberately ingored the data in elfer's post yet again. Seems it was too damning to your argument.

Wrong... This is not a strawman argument.

"No it isn't" is strawman buddy. Anyway, you once again ignored the data in elfer's post, further proving how damning it was to your argument.

And who draws that line?

The same people drawing it now.

It may be apples to oranges,

And it is.

but consider William the Conqueror... He abolished all forms of execution for crime in the 10th century. It was reinstated in the 16th century and the number of crimes PUNISHABLE by DEATH continued to grow until the 1700s when jurors refused to convict someone to death for a petty crime.

But once again you name past europian rulers who expanded the total number of punishable crimes, not just the ones punishable by death. This is nothing more than you repeating yourself Ad Nauseum. Congratulations, you are a ferrous cranus.

At 11/25/07 11:24 PM, Euroc wrote: Wrong... This is not a strawman argument. My point is legitimate and the correlation between lethal injection as a death penalty and the murder rate is spurious. Heres why: Explain Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, Wyoming, Oregon, New Hampshire, and a half dozen others all with murder rates well below the national average. (Right around 1 or 2 per 100,000) All of these states have Lethal injection and have very low murder rates. Plus, all but one State (Nebraska) offer lethal injection as a form of exectution. South Dakota is lower than any other state in the U.S. (1 per 100,000) Its even lower than any of the non-death penalty states!

I got a fact wrong... South Dakota is second with a rate of 1.2 per 100,000. The lowest is New Hampshire with a rate of 1 per 100,000. All of these statistics are from 2006. Also you may want to note that the highest state without a death penalty is Michigan (which is also the first state to outlaw the death penalty) with 7.1 murders per 100,000. This is more than twice the average for all non-death penalty states (3.1) and well over the national average (5.7) making your argument invalid.

At 11/25/07 11:53 PM, JerkClock wrote:

And you've done nothing by site another persons discussion as if you were attached to the hip. If I wanted to read his comments, or have a discussion with him, I would. In stead I am doing so with you. So make your point and argue mine or leave it alone...

At 11/25/07 11:53 PM, JerkClock wrote: I've known quite a bit more than 2. I lived in the ghetto for around 2 years, quite a few people I got to know had been to prison. Even a survey would not have responces from every single potential murderer in existence, but more a small sample of 10000 at most.

Either way, it makes it sort of hard to prove in an arguement, doesnt it? Just second hand stories and easily spoken statements after the fact. Like I said, if they were given the option and went through with it, that would hold far more weight.

"No it isn't" is strawman buddy. Anyway, you once again ignored the data in elfer's post, further proving how damning it was to your argument.

Where the hell do you think Im getting my data? Its from the website that elfer posted... www.deathpenaltyinfo.com. (Shit hot site Elfer... helped a lot with the paper! Thanks!)

But once again you name past europian rulers who expanded the total number of punishable crimes, not just the ones punishable by death. This is nothing more than you repeating yourself Ad

No, William just abolished the death penalty. Henry is the one who really started executing. But all I am saying is that history shows that a government can become out of control when it is allowed to execute it's citizens.

:Nauseum. Congratulations, you are a ferrous cranus.
And you are any better? Huh? Who's calling the kettle black?

At 11/26/07 12:02 AM, Euroc wrote:
And you've done nothing by site another persons discussion

Actually said person's discussion had actual, factual data in it. You on the other hand have shown you are too stupid not to triple post. And you even had to retarct a statement.

Either way, it makes it sort of hard to prove in an arguement, doesnt it?

Not when it's also proven that states practicing lethal injection have higher murder rates.

But all I am saying is that history shows that a government can become out of control when it is allowed to execute it's citizens.

No you're not showing it, you are deliberately naming only the facts you want people to see in an attempt to spin them to support your argument. And no matter how many times the big picture is pointed out to you(that they expanded all areas of their laws, meaning both what applied to the death penalty and what didn't) you keep ignoring it in the hopes your argument will magically become valid when it isn't, which is text book Ad Nauseum

And you are any better?

Yes, I'm not the one fallaciously neglecting factual arguments, ythat is you. So yes, I am a lot better than that.

At 11/26/07 12:39 AM, JerkClock wrote:

Yes, I'm not the one fallaciously neglecting factual arguments, ythat is you. So yes, I am a lot better than that.

You refused to answer any of the factual data that I have posted... I dont really know if you are reading them or just picking out trivial things about my comments to argue... that is a strawman fallacy... arguing the weakest point and declairing yourself winner. You keep quoting Elfers site... I did the same. He did not prove your point. Your point is weak and based on false correlations and invalid hearsay. The murder rate has not increased since the birth of lethal injection, or since it was adopted by Oklahoma in 1977. Violent crime is down... You think you need to win this argument, but the facts are simply against you.

At 11/22/07 10:21 AM, SuperDeagle wrote: There is a different between a murder, and a execution.
By your logic we should convict people who killed in self defense.
Also, it's not the death penalties obligation to decide who is or is not innocent. It's strictly to punish.
If an innocent man is sentenced to death, oh well, it's not the death penalties problem.
You pretty much already said this.

Holy shit, you're a moron. If we execute a man who was wrongfully imprisoned, it's murder, manslaughter at the very least.

Convicting people who killed in self-defense is not a logical conclusion because people have the right to defend themselves and others. How does that correlate to falsely accusing someone of a crime and executing them? Oh wait, it has NOTHING to do with it, you're just a retard.

And yes, it IS the death penalty's problem. You completely missed my point, but I'm not surprised, you clearly miss a lot of things. The very nature of the death penalty means that it is irreversible. If someone is executed, you cannot bring them back. If someone is wrongfully accused and sentenced to prison, they are able to be released from prison and compensated, at least in some way, for the loss. This is IMPOSSIBLE under capital punishment.

Also, did you just refer to murder as "oh well?" Fuck, I swear, I didn't expect you to be in MENSA, what, having the word "deagle" in your username and all, but I swear to God, anyone who treats taking an innocent life as something that can be shrugged off is not entitled to an opinion on capital punishment. Your ethics are obviously totally off-base.

At 11/24/07 05:13 PM, crankytoad wrote: I really wanna see the figures you're pulling there - prison bills cost around £5,000 per year, given on how well the prisoner is living, which adds up to £125,000 over a period of 25 years - how much does sodium pentathol cost? You have to go through the expensive court proceedings to prove a man's guilt anyway - I'm pretty sure appeals don't exceed the hundreds of thousands unless there's a serious doubt of the person's guilt or they're incredibly rich.

At 11/21/07 01:58 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

The unlimited appeals process really ties up a lot of money in court costs.

I've already addressed this point. The actual execution is cheap. I addressed this in the post you quoted and I addressed it later after another dumbass who couldn't be assed to check it himself made the same assumption you did.

Court costs are astronomical. Judges make a very good living, as do state prosecutors. On a capital case, the very best of both are brought in and, thus, every appeal costs a considerable sum. For a sentence as permanent as death, the convicted had BETTER be able to appeal as many times as they want in order to ensure that they aren't unjustly accused. People who have been convicted of capital crimes have been released because of this system so, obviously, it's a necessity, simply by virtue of the fact that it has prevented unjust executions.

Politicians here in Britain (where prison overcrowding is reaching crisis point) might beg to differ as well - the cost of a guillotine would be infinately cheaper than the cost of a multi-billion pound structure to be created...

Oh hell, I'll just pull it up again.

At 11/21/07 02:15 PM, Gunter45 wrote: The actual execution isn't what's expensive. Lethal injection and gassing aren't all that expensive, relatively speaking. The cost comes from the court costs associated with the unlimited appeals process.

A judge is effectively an employee of the government, employed to look at all the evidence and
judge whether or not the defendant is guilty. Someone like that cannot be held accountable for his actions if he is working on the behalf of the government - it's like a doctor making misdiagnosing a patient due to an imperfect X-ray. One time is just a law suit :P, 20 times he's a failed doctor and must be removed. If a judge was repeatedly found to have sentenced innocent men to jail on insufficient evidence then he would be reprimanded. The British National Party in Britain (shocker) want to re-legalise the dealth penalty for murders, paedophiles etc if their guilt can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt eg DNA evidence (One of the very few policies of theirs that I agree on)

No, the judge isn't the one who determines guilt, a jury does. I'll leave your blatant ignorance of the justice system alone, however, and move onto your ridiculous analogy.

A person being executed for a crime they didn't commit isn't just like a doctor making a fatal booboo on a high-risk surgery. For one, if a mistake is heinous enough on a doctor's part, they can be charged with manslaughter, criminal negligence if they have a very good attorney and get lucky. I'm assuming that you were referring to high-risk surgery, at least I'm kind of hoping you were. Even still, you're referring to procedures that need to be done in order to keep a patient alive. Therefore, a doctor needs all of his wits and precision to fight against death, not help it along, therefore a very simple mistake could ruin the procedure. However, in a court case, prosecutors are trying their damnedest to get a conviction and the harshest punishment possible. In trials for capital offenses, the very best state prosecutors are sent out and, let's face it, not everybody can afford a lawyer who is anywhere near as capable. So, in that case, it's not simply the judge's fault, it's the prosecutor's, the jury's, and the system's fault, as a whole, as well.

Is it not worth one innocent man's life to deter dozens of murders that may well have killed an innocent person each themselves if the death penalty was not instated?

Except for the fact that it doesn't deter murders, coupled with the fact that state-sponsored murder would be far worse than putting convicts in prison the rest of their life as opposed to killing them. Basically, all you're saying is that possibly killing innocent people is worth it just to kill people because they killed innocent people. I'd be nauseous if irony wasn't so delicious.

What I think you're talking about here is the one-in-a-million chance, otherwise known as Chance/Luck.

Are you telling me that a one-in-a-million chance can also be referred to as "chance?" And that this "chance" is, in some part, related to "luck?" What a useless fucking comment, not to mention wrong. I'll just refer back to the discrepancy in legal representation again. It's not a one-in-a-million chance. There have been studies done that say the odds are drastically better (or worse for those unfortunate enough to have been wrongfully accused) than that. I'm not going to trust those stats, as is, seeing as how statistics and all that can be manipulated, but at least they went farther for their research than their colons.

Besides, you can't deny that there are a number of people who have had their convictions overturned in the appeals process, but no, I guess unnecessary vengeance is worth killing a few innocents just to keep those bastards from killing more innocent people in the unlikely advent of a jailbreak... oh wait, you said that if something's unlikely, it's not worth following up... well... we're keeping them from murdering innocent people while in jail. Yeah, that'll teach the bastards to not kill innocent people unjustly.

Everyone seams to focus on punishment, why don't we try and find out what causes crime and asses those issues. Ever since we have built prisons crime has still occurred, we have had prisons for 1000s of years so its kind of an indication that that system doesn't work, even after reforms free countries have introduced crimes are still being committed.

I think executions may have prevented crimes back in the medieval times but this is because they were conducted in a brutal and public way. It scares the population much like a dictatorships. If someone will not stop murdering people well then I not sure what you are ment to do with those people, couldn't you just put them into the army or something.

Just seams stupid to not take a preventative approach to a recurring issue, people put fire alarms and smoke detectors into buildings so you can minimize the damage of fires, we give people vaccines so they wont get a disease etc.

At 11/26/07 09:16 AM, Euroc wrote:
You refused to answer any of the factual data that I have posted...

No dumbass I did answer it, by pointed out that you refused to include all the relevant facts and demonstrating your will to spin things to make them appear in a way that supports your agenda. You refused to acknowledge what elfer posted, despite repeated references to it by me.