Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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

I don't know if I'd go so far as to assume it's a causal relationship one way or the other. There could be an underlying societal factor that drives both the use of lethal injection and the higher murder rate.

However, I'm still unimpressed by the power of the death penalty as a deterrent.

At 11/26/07 01:14 PM, Elfer wrote:
I don't know if I'd go so far as to assume it's a causal relationship one way or the other. There could be an underlying societal factor that drives both the use of lethal injection and the higher murder rate.

However, I'm still unimpressed by the power of the death penalty as a deterrent.

Well I would say that there's probably some truth to that. But you have to admit it doesn't help to deter crime when the punishment is less severe than it perhaps should be.

Also for the record, to the guy that said we should focus on what causes crime, I partially agree. One factor in crime is that people such as felons often have a hard time finding jobs because of their past, whether they are trying to live honestly or not. While not everyone of them, at least some will turn to crime to support themselves when they can't have jobs. Certainly there are some things we can do to prevent crime before it starts.

However it is also true that there are cold blooded people out there who are just going to commit the crimes anyway. So while your proposal would help and even be a good idea, it is not a big, ultimate solution to crime.

At 11/21/07 05:59 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 11/21/07 03:01 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

And once you deny someone that right you deny it to yourself. Consider that, though being polite is very important, if you are impolite to me then you are shouting that you don't believe it important for me to be polite to you. Thus when you kill, you show contempt for human life that in essence makes you less than human, thus it is incumbent on society to kill you.

No, you don't deny it to yourself. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Also, degrading people by not considering them human is very much within the prohibition of "Torture and and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment".
And still, laws are made to protect people. Punishments exist to enforce laws. Thus punishments exist to protect people. Does capital punishment protect people? No.

Does it help deter crime?

No. Not a single study has shown that it workes to deter crime in any way.

**hemhem**

Oh! This is very interesting indeed, why haven't you linked me to that when we've talked about this before? Gotta take a deeper look, do you have a source to the study itself? Or any article that is a bit more "neutral" than Fox?

Is it ethical?

No. There is a REASON the right to life is a human life. And as long as the juridical system isn't perfect (which it never will be), people WILL get executed innocent of the crime in question.

And that is a terrible price. But by your logic we shouldn't jail anybody because people will be wrongly convicted and sent to jail which is also awful. however we can't stop administering justice because of this.

The price of freedom is always paid by the prisoners.

Yes, I do agree that it always is troublesome with wrongly convicted people, but a prison sentence mostly doesn't share the irreversible qualities that an execution has. If you are found not guilty a few years later, you can get a phat compensation and live goody goody the rest of your life. Of course it's terrible, but not at all in the same dimension as capital punishment.

Are their better alternatives? What...

Prison with good psychiatric treatment. And at least as important: A follow-up once they've been released. There is a Swedish organization called KRIS (criminals revenge in society) which works against criminality among criminals (they have revenge on society by showing that they aren't irreversable), and in the organization the amount of recividists is about 3% (I think that in the US it's about 70%, although I'm not sure at this).

Which is fantastic really, but by the fact that we get 70% return criminals is all the more support for the death penalty, you may say but you are taking away their human lives, but how do you explain to a parent whose child has just been murdered by someone YOU let out of jail thatyou weren't able to kill him because he is HUMAN? I have more sympathy for law-abiding citizens than I do for criminals.

Well, would you like to explain to the family of a wrongly executed person that they had to die to deter other people?
With all systems there are losers. And as I said, in Sweden, the amount of recividists is 3% in that organization (to ANY crime that is, could go from murder to shoplifting), and the amount of recividists among murderers (to murder again) was between year 19xx and 19xx (don't remember which and haven't got the source in front of me, although I can tell you which: "Det barbariska straffet" (the barbaric punishment) by Hans Göran Franck) was 2%, so if we'd executed 300 murderers, we would have had a net loss of 294 lives. 294 people who wouldn't had murdered again (who DIDN'T murder again). I don't wanna guess how many of those 294 who was wrongly convicted anyway.
This is of course in response to your example of getting killed by the same criminal, not counting in the deterring factor that you linked me to. I will return on that later, when I've read more about it.

At 11/25/07 12:23 AM, therealsylvos wrote:

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.

Well, there it isn't really the way you DIE that is the problem, it's the way you're tortured for a day or two before. Quite different, although I DO agree that execution is the highest form of torture.

At 11/24/07 04:58 PM, Lindione wrote: 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
Honesty after you undoubtedly kill or rape someone I don't care about your rights anymore

;
While i don't believe the death penalty is the best solution.
THere are crimes proven with DNA evidence, where the accussed also confesses to their crime.
If you are one of those few who are proven guilty & so far no one who has been proven guilty by DNA evidence who has also confessed , has ever been shown to be innocent.
Not anywhere I've looked & I do.
THat doesn't mean DNA evidence cannot be planted, but a confession, & like in the case of some Mass murderers who take investigators to hidden body locations for me anyway is a perfect candidate for execution.

Every time someone here says killing someone costs more than putting them in jail for 30, 40 50 + years until they die, it just pisses me off.
It would be cheaper to kill the convicted 'candidates' I've just mentioned .IF & its a big IF you stop allowing them 10 to 20 years of appeal.
In Canada, Clifford Olsen a mass murderer who took investigators to many undiscovered victims he had murdered. Is a perfect candidate.
You know he's guilty.
He confessed .
He has DNA evidence against him.
You know if he gets a chance he will do it again.
Fry the bastard, no never ending legal wrangling allowed.
THat would be cheaper than keeping him alive for another 30 + years.
Best of all, He never will kill anyone else. As it stands now guards & other inmates are still at risk.

What about their rights... are they not important, they are more important than his rights. ( to me anyway)

At 11/26/07 11:34 AM, JerkClock wrote:

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.

So, have you run out of arguments? Now the personal attacks start? I didn't know I was debating with a teenager. I have since referenced to the website that elfer got his stats from. All of the numbers I gave you including the lower murder rates for about a dozen states that have lethal injection as a form of capital punishment, have gone unanswered. Instead you childishly link to websites that have nothing to do with the argument. So, instead of defending youself or attacking me, explain how, if your thesis is true, can States with lethal injection have a lower murder rate that states without a death penalty?

At 11/26/07 05:17 PM, Euroc wrote:

So, have you run out of arguments?

What? Because you said so? You do know that strawman Ad Nauseum doesn't reflect well on you right?

Seriously, no one ran out of arguments but you, that's why you quit and not me, remember?

By the way, have you considered that if the problems with executions, guilt, innocence, apeals, are what cause problems for executions...

Well, let me put it this way, have you considered even in the least that it's the legal system that is at fault here and not the criminal justice system?

This reminds me of something... it had to do with healthcare and the insurrance agencies... I completely forgot what it was, i'll be right back :D

At 11/26/07 05:41 PM, JerkClock wrote:

What? Because you said so? You do know that strawman Ad Nauseum doesn't reflect well on you right?

Seriously, no one ran out of arguments but you, that's why you quit and not me, remember?

Weak dude, you didn't even attempt to answer the facts I posted... You did exactly what you claim I do.. thats the strawman fallicy... you took one point (that I said you are out of arguments) and completely ignored what the my true post was about... pitiful.

At 11/26/07 11:51 PM, Euroc wrote:

Weak dude, you didn't even attempt to answer the facts I posted...

You didn't post any facts. All you did was say, "Well umm the murder rates are actually lower not higher, despite damning evidence to the contrary", and uh, that's not a factual argument. Whether you wish to believe it is or not.

At 11/27/07 12:39 AM, JerkClock wrote:

You didn't post any facts. All you did was say, "Well umm the murder rates are actually lower not higher, despite damning evidence to the contrary", and uh, that's not a factual argument. Whether you wish to believe it is or not.

These were the facts I was refering to:

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. New Hampshire 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 also mentioned that Michigan has a murder rate of 7.7 per 100,000 and was the first to abolish the death penalty.

You never responded to these ideas. If the correlation between lethal injection and the murder rate were true and positive, then there would not be so many states that incoperate lethal injection and have a murder rate far below the national average of 5.7 per 100,000. These States even have murder rates below the average of non-death penalty states which is 3.1 per 100,000.

Explain this and how it supports your idea.

Fuck. You're getting the better of my A.D.D. :)

At 11/26/07 01:40 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

No, you don't deny it to yourself. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Ok I skimmed through it, didn't see what you were reffering too. Believe it or not, I have never even heard of this until now, is it a big thing in europe? to people get sentimental about it like we americans do over our constitution? Anyway even if it is there this is about my philosophies, so the U.N. is well within their rights to be wrong.

Also, degrading people by not considering them human is very much within the prohibition of "Torture and and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment".

Lol. They are not people, so I am not degrading them in any way. in fact you calling them people is an insult to all people. Please note i am not lumping all murderers into one basket. There are some people who, lets say, were emotionally tortured by some person. He is not nearly as animalistic, as someone who rapes and kills to satisfy his most base lusts.

And still, laws are made to protect people. Punishments exist to enforce laws. Thus punishments exist to protect people. Does capital punishment protect people? No.

2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution. m-w.com
there are those of us that still believe in Justice.

Does it help deter crime?

No. Not a single study has shown that it workes to deter crime in any way.

**hemhem**

Oh! This is very interesting indeed, why haven't you linked me to that when we've talked about this before? Gotta take a deeper look, do you have a source to the study itself? Or any article that is a bit more "neutral" than Fox?

Well because I never heard about it until now. I was merely seeing if claim that "Not a single..."
So no i do not have the source itself, that was the product of a 10 second google search. ;)

The price of freedom is always paid by the prisoners.

Yes, I do agree that it always is troublesome with wrongly convicted people, but a prison sentence mostly doesn't share the irreversible qualities that an execution has. If you are found not guilty a few years later, you can get a phat compensation and live goody goody the rest of your life. Of course it's terrible, but not at all in the same dimension as capital punishment.

I think it does, but that is a bit of lengthy discussion. Lets put it this way: If you are not sure enough of a person's guilt to warrant you killing him, he should not be in jail.

Which is fantastic really, but by the fact that we get 70% return criminals is all the more support for the death penalty, you may say but you are taking away their human lives, but how do you explain to a parent whose child has just been murdered by someone YOU let out of jail thatyou weren't able to kill him because he is HUMAN? I have more sympathy for law-abiding citizens than I do for criminals.

Well, would you like to explain to the family of a wrongly executed person that they had to die to deter other people?

Certainly not, but you can't have it perfect. If you look at the total people killed by repeat offenders who should have been execute/never paroled vs. the amount of people wrongly put to death, I have a hunch the former will have a bigger body count.

With all systems there are losers. And as I said, in Sweden, the amount of recividists is 3% in that organization (to ANY crime that is, could go from murder to shoplifting), and the amount of recividists among murderers (to murder again) was between year 19xx and 19xx (don't remember which and haven't got the source in front of me, although I can tell you which: "Det barbariska straffet" (the barbaric punishment) by Hans Göran Franck) was 2%, so if we'd executed 300 murderers, we would have had a net loss of 294 lives. 294 people who wouldn't had murdered again (who DIDN'T murder again). I don't wanna guess how many of those 294 who was wrongly convicted anyway.

Hm. You let out of jail so many murderers to build a study like that on? I would need to see that study. There are a lot of unknows there.

Well, there it isn't really the way you DIE that is the problem, it's the way you're tortured for a day or two before. Quite different, although I DO agree that execution is the highest form of torture.

Eh? He impaled them through the ass. That is the way they died. I think that was the main detterant.

At 11/27/07 10:56 AM, Euroc wrote:
Explain Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, Wyoming, Oregon, New Hampshire, and a half dozen others all with murder rates well below the national average.

California has the death penalty too, but it rarely if ever practices it. As it is, the southern states that are known for using it don't do so very often. However they do it much more so than the northern states. The death penalty is irrelevant if it's almost never used.

I also mentioned that Michigan has a murder rate of 7.7 per 100,000 and was the first to abolish the death penalty.

That's not a whole lot above national averages of 5.7 per 100000. I mean if it were 25 or so I could see your point. It's less than what it is in some of the other states that are infamous for practicing it.

You never responded to these ideas. If the correlation between lethal injection and the murder rate were true and positive, then there would not be so many states that incoperate lethal injection and have a murder rate far below the national average of 5.7 per 100,000. These States even have murder rates below the average of non-death penalty states which is 3.1 per 100,000.

Ok genius explain the national average being 5.7 but the national average for non-death penalty states being 3.1.

At 11/28/07 06:53 AM, JerkClock wrote:

Ok genius explain the national average being 5.7 but the national average for non-death penalty states being 3.1.

I think it's has more to do with the individual cultural factors in each state. I think the death penalty is a non-issue with regards to its effect at deterence, one way or another. Now, if we executed people by steam roller starting at the toes would the murder rate decrease? Thats kind of the point to your argument right? Make the death penalty a lot worse and we will see a drop in violent murder.

It might, but I don't really think it would. We can only speculate, or look at historical numbers. The murder rate is down from when electrocution was the method of execution most commonly performed. Electrocution is pretty bad too... you can read plenty of cases about botched electrocutions. I would pick lethal injection or firing squad over electrocution any day. But I think the higher murder rate was due more to sociological factors than a fear or acceptance of the death penalty. I think they work independent of each other.

I can run the numbers with you later on the number of executions in each state and how high their murder rate is. I just wanted to respond, but I got classes now.

At 11/27/07 06:25 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Fuck. You're getting the better of my A.D.D. :)

At 11/26/07 01:40 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

No, you don't deny it to yourself. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Ok I skimmed through it, didn't see what you were reffering too. Believe it or not, I have never even heard of this until now, is it a big thing in europe? to people get sentimental about it like we americans do over our constitution? Anyway even if it is there this is about my philosophies, so the U.N. is well within their rights to be wrong.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Are you serious? Not as big as it should be, it's the single most important publication of the UN. Think like this: BOTH USA and Soviet agreed that it was good. The rest of the world to. USA was one of the driving forces behind it, especially the political/civic rights (while soviet was the main driving force behind the cultural/economical/social rights). This declaration should be followed by all countries in the world.

What I was reffering to was the whole text. It's about every human being, just being a Homo Sapiens means you qualify for those rights.

Also, degrading people by not considering them human is very much within the prohibition of "Torture and and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment".

Lol. They are not people, so I am not degrading them in any way. in fact you calling them people is an insult to all people. Please note i am not lumping all murderers into one basket. There are some people who, lets say, were emotionally tortured by some person. He is not nearly as animalistic, as someone who rapes and kills to satisfy his most base lusts.

And n*ggers are dogs, and saying anything else is an insult to any REAL humans. You know that blacks have a higher crime rate, right? -.-

And still, laws are made to protect people. Punishments exist to enforce laws. Thus punishments exist to protect people. Does capital punishment protect people? No.

2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution. m-w.com
there are those of us that still believe in Justice.

Justice is very subjective, and, as Ghandi said, "eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Does it help deter crime?

No. Not a single study has shown that it workes to deter crime in any way.

**hemhem**

Oh! This is very interesting indeed, why haven't you linked me to that when we've talked about this before? Gotta take a deeper look, do you have a source to the study itself? Or any article that is a bit more "neutral" than Fox?

Well because I never heard about it until now. I was merely seeing if claim that "Not a single..."
So no i do not have the source itself, that was the product of a 10 second google search. ;)

I gotta check it out. I'll mail my Amnesty group and ask if anyone has it.

The price of freedom is always paid by the prisoners.

Yes, I do agree that it always is troublesome with wrongly convicted people, but a prison sentence mostly doesn't share the irreversible qualities that an execution has. If you are found not guilty a few years later, you can get a phat compensation and live goody goody the rest of your life. Of course it's terrible, but not at all in the same dimension as capital punishment.

I think it does, but that is a bit of lengthy discussion. Lets put it this way: If you are not sure enough of a person's guilt to warrant you killing him, he should not be in jail.

The thing is, even if you are sure, sometimes it gets wrong anyway. I'm not a big fan of prison as punishment either, I'm more for rehabilitation (which has proven very effective).

Which is fantastic really, but by the fact that we get 70% return criminals is all the more support for the death penalty, you may say but you are taking away their human lives, but how do you explain to a parent whose child has just been murdered by someone YOU let out of jail thatyou weren't able to kill him because he is HUMAN? I have more sympathy for law-abiding citizens than I do for criminals.

Well, would you like to explain to the family of a wrongly executed person that they had to die to deter other people?

Certainly not, but you can't have it perfect. If you look at the total people killed by repeat offenders who should have been execute/never paroled vs. the amount of people wrongly put to death, I have a hunch the former will have a bigger body count.

I'm positive it isn't that way here in Sweden, at least. And no, we DON'T have a hugely different demographic with much less minorities, actually, we take 18 times as many Iraqi refugees as the US (and we only have 2,3% of your total population).

With all systems there are losers. And as I said, in Sweden, the amount of recividists is 3% in that organization (to ANY crime that is, could go from murder to shoplifting), and the amount of recividists among murderers (to murder again) was between year 19xx and 19xx (don't remember which and haven't got the source in front of me, although I can tell you which: "Det barbariska straffet" (the barbaric punishment) by Hans Göran Franck) was 2%, so if we'd executed 300 murderers, we would have had a net loss of 294 lives. 294 people who wouldn't had murdered again (who DIDN'T murder again). I don't wanna guess how many of those 294 who was wrongly convicted anyway.

Hm. You let out of jail so many murderers to build a study like that on? I would need to see that study. There are a lot of unknows there.

I can link you to a place where you could buy it, but it's in Swedish. I can check up the exact years and numbers next time I'm at the Amnesty office if you want, however.

Well, there it isn't really the way you DIE that is the problem, it's the way you're tortured for a day or two before. Quite different, although I DO agree that execution is the highest form of torture.

Eh? He impaled them through the ass. That is the way they died. I think that was the main detterant.

It was that they lived for a day or two with a pole through their asses that was the main detterant, I think. Anyhow, that made me think about a funny dialouge in a swedish comedy serie about vikings:
Lill-snorre (accused of murder): Maybe he died a natural death?
Rövhalt (father of the murdered): He had a POLE UP HIS ASS!?
Lill-snorre: Well, then it's quite natural that he is dead, isn't it?
However, that was KIND of off topic. Except that he was nearly excecuted innocent :)

At 11/28/07 02:33 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

And n*ggers are dogs, and saying anything else is an insult to any REAL humans. You know that blacks have a higher crime rate, right? -.-

Bah, there you lump people together not based on something they have done, but based on something people who look similiar have done. HUGE difference.

2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution. m-w.com
there are those of us that still believe in Justice.

Justice is very subjective, and, as Ghandi said, "eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Bah, there are some things I like about Ghandi, this is most certainly not one of them. See what he does is draw moral equivalence to a cowardly criminal to the court system, which is disgusting to me.

I gotta check it out. I'll mail my Amnesty group and ask if anyone has it.

I like this arrangement.

you do the work.

The thing is, even if you are sure, sometimes it gets wrong anyway. I'm not a big fan of prison as punishment either, I'm more for rehabilitation (which has proven very effective).

Sure, but what do you propose, do away with the prison system? what about before they are rehabilitated? it takes time no? How are you going to prevent them from doing harm without jail?

I'm positive it isn't that way here in Sweden, at least. And no, we DON'T have a hugely different demographic with much less minorities, actually, we take 18 times as many Iraqi refugees as the US (and we only have 2,3% of your total population).

25% of our population are minorities, I couldn't find anything on Sweden, Can you do bette?

I can link you to a place where you could buy it, but it's in Swedish. I can check up the exact years and numbers next time I'm at the Amnesty office if you want, however.

Bah I'm horrible at foreign languages, but those numbers would be cool.

Lill-snorre (accused of murder): Maybe he died a natural death?

Rövhalt (father of the murdered): He had a POLE UP HIS ASS!?
Lill-snorre: Well, then it's quite natural that he is dead, isn't it?
However, that was KIND of off topic. Except that he was nearly excecuted innocent :)

Made think of that horrible movie, "paycheck"
He died of natural causes.
What?
Gravity.

anyway I accidentally deleted the quote but anyway, that is all part of the death, just as waiting in front of the firing line is, or suffocating on the rope, they are all part of it, and all are much worse than lethal injection, which beside a little pinch is relatively painless.

At 11/28/07 09:20 AM, Euroc wrote:
I think it's has more to do with the individual cultural factors in each state.

It's a factor yes, but the only one.

I think the death penalty is a non-issue with regards to its effect at deterence, one way or another. Now, if we executed people by steam roller starting at the toes would the murder rate decrease? Thats kind of the point to your argument right? Make the death penalty a lot worse and we will see a drop in violent murder.

Yes exactly.

It might, but I don't really think it would. We can only speculate, or look at historical numbers. The murder rate is down from when electrocution was the method of execution most commonly performed.

That's not because of the elecric chair going away, that's because it's much, much more difficult to kill someone and never get caught than it used to be. Back in 1920, if you did your homework on crime investigation and left no witnesses, you could pretty much get away with killing somebody. It's also true that back then we had a racist society that allowed the murders of certain races to largely go unpunished. Albert Fish mostly killed black people, but ironically it wasn't because he was racist. He was most likely one of the few non-racists around at the time. He did it because he knew it would go unpunished. And he was right, the 8 kids he was convicted of killing were the only 8 white kids he ever killed.

At 11/29/07 12:53 AM, JerkClock wrote:
That's not because of the elecric chair going away, that's because it's much, much more difficult to kill someone and never get caught than it used to be. Back in 1920, if you did your homework on crime investigation and left no witnesses, you could pretty much get away with killing somebody. It's also true that back then we had a racist society that allowed the murders of certain races to largely go unpunished. Albert Fish mostly killed black people, but ironically it wasn't because he was racist. He was most likely one of the few non-racists around at the time. He did it because he knew it would go unpunished. And he was right, the 8 kids he was convicted of killing were the only 8 white kids he ever killed.

We might not disagree as much as you first though. I would argue that factors like what you said in this paragraph 1) Harder to get away with and 2) More just system, have more to do with the decline in the murder rates than the actual penalty itself. Thats why I was saying I dont believe the method of execution has much of an effect on the murder rate. Also, consider how difficult it is for a jury to convict on a murder charge. In tennesse, they have a 30 percent overturn on appeals! That doesnt even touch the DAs that couldnt get the death penalty because of jury sympathy. So imagine in the penatly was more old school... boiling, burning, skinning, et cetera. How hard would it be for a conviction then? If Im on a jury you better have a hell of a lot more than eye witness testimony for me to sentence a person to be skinned, you know?

At 11/29/07 01:12 AM, Euroc wrote:
We might not disagree as much as you first though. I would argue that factors like what you said in this paragraph 1) Harder to get away with and 2) More just system, have more to do with the decline in the murder rates than the actual penalty itself. Thats why I was saying I dont believe the method of execution has much of an effect on the murder rate. Also, consider how difficult it is for a jury to convict on a murder charge. In tennesse, they have a 30 percent overturn on appeals! That doesnt even touch the DAs that couldnt get the death penalty because of jury sympathy. So imagine in the penatly was more old school... boiling, burning, skinning, et cetera. How hard would it be for a conviction then? If Im on a jury you better have a hell of a lot more than eye witness testimony for me to sentence a person to be skinned, you know?

While this is true, also consider that I believe police should be more thorough. And that I don't believe everyone who commits murder should be boiled or skinned, only those who's crimes are sick enough to warrant it. So it is possible to have these punishments implemented with a common sense factor.

At 11/27/07 10:56 AM, Euroc wrote: I also mentioned that Michigan has a murder rate of 7.7 per 100,000 and was the first to abolish the death penalty.

Somebody's never been to Detroit.

At 11/29/07 03:05 AM, JerkClock wrote:

While this is true, also consider that I believe police should be more thorough. And that I don't believe everyone who commits murder should be boiled or skinned, only those who's crimes are sick enough to warrant it. So it is possible to have these punishments implemented with a common sense factor.

Statistically that is a very, very small minority of murders. The people who commit murders like that are sick enough to not really care about the punishments because they aren't thinking about it. Sure, it would make us all feel better to know that this person suffered at LEAST as bad as his victims did, but would it really be worth it? I mean, it would cause a negative world image of the U.S. Most think humane execution is barbaric. Second, we would have to amend the constitutions eighth amendment. Finally, we would have to turn our good guys into executioners who were able to cause such a horrific death and still go home and kiss their wives goodnight. It really would place our criminal justice system in a tight place.

I like what Huckabee said in his death penalty question last night. He said that signing the execution was the hardest thing he had to do. I want to think that killing our killers should always be hard for a leader, even if its done ethically. To force the hands of our leaders to carry out "Saw III" style executions seems unethical.

At 11/29/07 10:52 AM, Euroc wrote: To force the hands of our leaders to carry out "Saw III" style executions seems unethical.

Not to mention it goes far beyond the scope of our justice system. The justice system is designed to carry out justice, not vengeance. It's not the government's place to get revenge.

At 11/29/07 10:52 AM, Euroc wrote:
Statistically that is a very, very small minority of murders. The people who commit murders like that are sick enough to not really care about the punishments because they aren't thinking about it. Sure, it would make us all feel better to know that this person suffered at LEAST as bad as his victims did, but would it really be worth it?

I don't really care who it makes feel good, just so long as the bastard gets what he deserves.

I mean, it would cause a negative world image of the U.S. Most think humane execution is barbaric.

Fuck em', it's not like we're viewed as anything but hypocritical war mongering prickss to begin with, despite the fact that our government's action are by no means supported by all of us. What are they gonna do? Go to war with us and die?

Second, we would have to amend the constitutions eighth amendment.

I'm all for scrapping our system and starting over anyway. For one thing, all bringing in democracy did was bring rhetoric into our politics.

Finally, we would have to turn our good guys into executioners who were able to cause such a horrific death and still go home and kiss their wives goodnight. It really would place our criminal justice system in a tight place.

You don't have to be a bad guy to torture people who absolutely deserve it and not be traumatized by the experience.

To force the hands of our leaders to carry out "Saw III" style executions seems unethical.

And how so?

At 11/29/07 11:51 PM, JerkClock wrote:

I can't really argue against your 'fuck em' ideaolgy. That is how I have been feeling too recently, but I'm not yet ready to give up on our system. I mean, I can argue statistics about deterrence and such but you have taken a hard lined stance that will not be swayed. I think with the right leaders our system can be saved. Our country has been through some tough times, and I really hope (almost pray, if I were into that) that our Nation will be great again. Do consider the following before you lose all confidence in our system... Many nations have moved rights to victims over criminals. I own several firearms. I love them. I like the cold metal and a smoking barrel. I like the mechanical clinks and cachinks I hear when I chamber a round. But I digress. I have license to carry a concealed firearm in nearly all public and private places. Government buildings are about all thats off limits. I dont have to retreat anymore thanks to "make my day" legislation. I am also allowed to use lethal force on an intruder, regardless of their intent. So some things have gotten better for the law abiding.

To force the hands of our leaders to carry out "Saw III" style executions seems unethical.

And how so?

Maybe I'm disillusioned, but I have considered going into law enforcement to make a difference. I think most people enter with that idea. I could kill an intruder in my house. I could kill a mugger at a 7-eleven. I could kill and person I caught molesting a child in the act. But I didn't even like it when the blood ran down my hand when I cut my oldest daughters umbilicle cord! There is no way I could torture someone to death while they are in a harmless position. I think it would be hypocritical for me to try to force someone to do something that I could not bring myself to do.

At 11/30/07 12:20 AM, Euroc wrote:
I can't really argue against your 'fuck em' ideaolgy. That is how I have been feeling too recently, but I'm not yet ready to give up on our system. I mean, I can argue statistics about deterrence and such but you have taken a hard lined stance that will not be swayed. I think with the right leaders our system can be saved. Our country has been through some tough times, and I really hope (almost pray, if I were into that) that our Nation will be great again. Do consider the following before you lose all confidence in our system... Many nations have moved rights to victims over criminals. I own several firearms. I love them. I like the cold metal and a smoking barrel. I like the mechanical clinks and cachinks I hear when I chamber a round. But I digress. I have license to carry a concealed firearm in nearly all public and private places. Government buildings are about all thats off limits. I dont have to retreat anymore thanks to "make my day" legislation. I am also allowed to use lethal force on an intruder, regardless of their intent. So some things have gotten better for the law abiding.

I'm more saying our system sucks because of the way rhetoric and semantics bastardized it.

For instance, people argue against the death penalty because of the "Life, Liberty and Persuit of happiness" thing. But they are too stupid to realize that by the same logic you can't throw people in jail either because that's taking away their "liberty." Then they argue about what's a "right not to be inconvenienced" and there is no such fucking thing. There is order over freedom, sure, but no right not to be inconvenienced by others, that's pure and utter bullshit.

Maybe I'm disillusioned, but I have considered going into law enforcement to make a difference. I think most people enter with that idea. I could kill an intruder in my house. I could kill a mugger at a 7-eleven. I could kill and person I caught molesting a child in the act. But I didn't even like it when the blood ran down my hand when I cut my oldest daughters umbilicle cord! There is no way I could torture someone to death while they are in a harmless position. I think it would be hypocritical for me to try to force someone to do something that I could not bring myself to do.

Well not everyone has that hard of a time with such things. I know I've personally caused other people who were fuckeds harm and felt pretty damned good about it. Like this one time I pissed off these slow driving pricks and in an attempt to follow me they got themselves seriously injured in a car wreck, I still laugh about that today,

At 11/30/07 01:16 AM, JerkClock wrote: Well not everyone has that hard of a time with such things. I know I've personally caused other people who were fuckeds harm and felt pretty damned good about it. Like this one time I pissed off these slow driving pricks and in an attempt to follow me they got themselves seriously injured in a car wreck, I still laugh about that today,

Granted... it could be me and others like me. Not everyone has the same conscience. I had a good friend in the navy who was prior army in Desert Storm. He was a gunner in the tanks, and after a mission in which an enemy vehicle was destroyed (along with its combatants) he discribed the atmosphere as very sober and solemn. He said it was hard to know that they had killed people... but not for everyone. Some were making jokes about it.

Your example is a heat of the moment one... would you have a problem viciously killing a person who and raped and murded 3 elementary school girls... twelve years after it happened? What if the person showed true remorse? Understand, if it were still fresh or if I happened to catch this individual they may have to execute me for the ruthlessness I would take. But 12 years later... after the passion is gone and this person is a different man.... Are you the same person you were 10 years ago? I'm not the same person I was five years ago. Life does that. I don't think I could. I could throw a switch, or pull a lever, but not flay or cut or rip...

At 11/30/07 01:40 AM, Euroc wrote:
Your example is a heat of the moment one... would you have a problem viciously killing a person who and raped and murded 3 elementary school girls... twelve years after it happened?

The only part I'd have a problem with is killing him instead of keeping him alive in order to keep torturing him

What if the person showed true remorse?

Then I would argue psychologically torture him with his memories of it instead. It's more fitting that way.

Understand, if it were still fresh or if I happened to catch this individual they may have to execute me for the ruthlessness I would take. But 12 years later... after the passion is gone and this person is a different man.... Are you the same person you were 10 years ago? I'm not the same person I was five years ago. Life does that.

Hence why our justice system needs to practice stuff on a case by case basis.

I don't think I could. I could throw a switch, or pull a lever, but not flay or cut or rip...

Well I could, if the person was sick enough to deserve it.

At 11/21/07 01:51 PM, Elfer wrote: Using data from this site, it would appear that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent at best, as the murder rate in states with no death penalty is actually significantly less than that in states with a death penalty at the 95% confidence interval.

our death penalty doesnt work in deturing crime because of all the legal crap we have to go thruogh. heres something those stats dont say ted bundy (serial killer)escaped from jail twice and he was able to kill more people. even today his death count is unown but estimates go past 30 women. he got bbq in florda in 1989. had he not fried it is possible he could have broke out and killed more

At 11/29/07 03:23 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 11/27/07 10:56 AM, Euroc wrote: I also mentioned that Michigan has a murder rate of 7.7 per 100,000 and was the first to abolish the death penalty.

Somebody's never been to Detroit.

Clearly......