Yanks only: Who are you voting for on Tuesday?

[Dak]

No evidence for which? That those convicted of crimes are more likely to repeat them or that the death penalty is a gaurunteed deterrent for a second murder? Because the fact that said criminal is dead DOES gauruntee no second crime (duh). As far as the other question:

Reconviction (PDF)

especially when you yourself asked for proof of our claims and then were provided with it.

Nothing convincing.

 

[AchrisK]

You have no evidence for this. You can't just say things and not back them up by facts, especially when you yourself asked for proof of our claims and then were provided with it.

Ya, I think the deadness of the killer is a pretty good proof.

 

[cookiecutter]

No evidence for which? That those convicted of crimes are more likely to repeat them or that the death penalty is a gaurunteed deterrent for a second murder? Because the fact that said criminal is dead DOES gauruntee no second crime (duh). As far as the other question:

Reconviction (PDF)

I misunderstood what you said. I thought you meant that the death penalty deters a criminal from committing the second crime, whereas your actual argument was that killing someone prevents them from committing more crimes. You misused the word deterrence.

There are still two flaws in this argument:

1) The alternative to the death penalty is life in prison without parole. They still cannot commit that second crime.

2) Just because it is statistically more likely that a violent criminal will re-offend, doesn't mean he should be killed. You can't punish for a crime that has not been committed.

 

[skeptik]

In fairness, Dakryn's point was worded fairly fucking stupidly. It read more like he was saying that having the option of the death penalty on the table would be more likely to deter a criminal from committing a crime a second time. If that's the argument that you want to use to support capital punishment, then it has no leg up over life imprisonment, which is essentially equally as effective in preventing repeat offenders.

edit: beaten to the punch.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

And cheaper, more morally just, and just generally better.

 

[AchrisK]

They have done studies and it isn't a deterrent no matter how much you want it to be.

I guess my point is, it doesn't make sense. I am not asking you to disbelieve the studies, but I assume you do see the logical extension of the consequences as a deterrent, don't you?

Also, studies don't necessarily = truth. Depending on who did the studies, and if they had a preconceived opinion and how much they wanted a certain result, the studies could be done in such a way as to favor the desired results. Even without purposeful manipulation, studies aren't perfect. Again, not outright accusing the studies and I have not read them. I am just suspicious based on the way I see things.

 

[Dak]

I misunderstood what you said. I thought you meant that the death penalty deters a criminal from committing the second crime, whereas your actual argument was that killing someone prevents them from committing more crimes. You misused the word deterrence.

There are still two flaws in this argument:

1) The alternative to the death penalty is life in prison without parole. They still cannot commit that second crime.

2) Just because it is statistically more likely that a violent criminal will re-offend, doesn't mean he should be killed. You can't punish for a crime that has not been committed.

Sorry for the confusion, it was opinion/arguement that wasn't seperated well.

I am not for the death penalty for all violent criminals, (although personally I am for it in clear rape cases, which is mere opinion).

As I said before, and which remains unaddressed, is that the statistics given for "lack of deterrence" for the [first] murder from the death penalty are flawd, because the death penalty is not universally applied with consistancy, thereby rendering the statistics null for proof's sake.

Free room and board for life is not proper restitution. Same reason I am completely against jail-time for any kind of thieves. Forced labor until the stolen value is repaid would be proper restitution for thieves, and the death penalty for murder would be proper restitution for those who cause death.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Why is being locked up for the rest of your life not a proper form of restitution? Can you really defend that this is not better than just killing them outright, making us not much better than them anyway?

The government doesn't have time to be petty and spiteful and kill people who kill or rape or violate others just out of want for revenge. Are we really this much of a bloodthirsty, ludicrous country to want to see the bastard die in front of our eyes rather than suffer longer in jail? A good majority of these people would probably rather die than spend life in jail. Have you heard of a case where their last words were PLEASE NO DON'T KILL ME LOCK ME UP HOLY SHIT? No, they usually are smug about it...they think they've won usually when society kills them outright. They want to be martyred. Death penalty gives these fuckers satisfaction most of the time.

 

[AchrisK]

Not just locked up, but also free food.

I love free food.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

you can't just not feed people in jail. That opens a whole other can of worms.

 

[Dak]

Why is being locked up for the rest of your life not a proper form of restitution? Can you really defend that this is not better than just killing them outright, making us not much better than them anyway?

The government doesn't have time to be petty and spiteful and kill people who kill or rape or violate others just out of want for revenge. Are we really this much of a bloodthirsty, ludicrous country to want to see the bastard die in front of our eyes rather than suffer longer in jail? A good majority of these people would probably rather die than spend life in jail. Have you heard of a case where their last words were PLEASE NO DON'T KILL ME LOCK ME UP HOLY SHIT? No, they usually are smug about it...they think they've won usually when society kills them outright. They want to be martyred. Death penalty gives these fuckers satisfaction most of the time.

#1. What is petty and spiteful about fucking justice? If the death penalty is petty/spiteful then so is life in prison.

#2. Again, whats "bloodthirsty" about equal restitution?

#3. So now we are basing the punishment on whether the
convicted is ok with it? It's about the crime sir.
They can be satisfied all the want in the grave.

 

[King Richard]

Jesus christ, are you all running for president too? Why the hell do you guys take over just about every thread and have to nitpick at what each other is saying? You have differing opinions, big fucking deal.

 

[skeptik]

I guess my point is, it doesn't make sense. I am not asking you to disbelieve the studies, but I assume you do see the logical extension of the consequences as a deterrent, don't you?

I see the logic in a person that wants to kill somebody not caring whether or not he has to die in order for that to happen.

Also, studies don't necessarily = truth. Depending on who did the studies, and if they had a preconceived opinion and how much they wanted a certain result, the studies could be done in such a way as to favor the desired results. Even without purposeful manipulation, studies aren't perfect. Again, not outright accusing the studies and I have not read them. I am just suspicious based on the way I see things.

You obviously (as any one individual) have a very narrow perspective. Statistics show that areas in which the death penalty is most often used are also the areas in which the most violent crimes occur, and vice versa, by large margins. This sounds like pretty strong evidence to suggest that the death penalty is not much of a deterrence for the average violent crime offender than is any other punishment they may receive.

As I said before, and which remains unaddressed, is that the statistics given for "lack of deterrence" for the [first] murder from the death penalty are flawd, because the death penalty is not universally applied with consistancy, thereby rendering the statistics null for proof's sake.

The statistics are for crimes that are generally eligible to receive the death penalty, actually, not criminal activity across the board. If the death penalty was genuinely a legitimate deterrence, then we would see a decline in crimes committed which are generally subject to the death penalty, but we haven't. Police chiefs, law enforcement agencies, and pretty much everyone that would be in a better position to know, generally agree that the death penalty is hardly much of a deterrence at all, and certainly not enough for that reason alone to consider it justifiable.

Free room and board for life is not proper restitution. Same reason I am completely against jail-time for any kind of thieves. Forced labor until the stolen value is repaid would be proper restitution for thieves, and the death penalty for murder would be proper restitution for those who cause death.

If you were, say, 25 years old and perfectly healthy, would you honestly choose guaranteed life imprisonment with no parole or the death penalty? I'm pretty convinced that I would choose the death penalty myself, or I might just wind up attempting to commit suicide. Life imprisonment can hardly be reduced to "free room and board". That's just a silly way of attempting to trivialize the severity of the sentence.

How do you define "proper restitution", how do you justify it, and on what grounds do you think you are right in proposing such an absurd thing? The purpose of the prison system is to keep harmful elements out of society until they are no longer deemed harmful, it is not to punish. Of course it doesn't work that way in practice, but that is generally its purpose. If we focused our prison systems not on punishment but on rehabilitation, we would be much better off.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

YA CAN'T REBILUHTATE A RAPIST DUHRDUHR

 

[Dak]

I see the logic in a person that wants to kill somebody not caring whether or not he has to die in order for that to happen.

Like I said, without universal application of sentencing for murder, this logic doesn't fly, since most who commit murder in the US(unless in Texas maybe) probably don't expect the death penalty.

You obviously (as any one individual) have a very narrow perspective. Statistics show that areas in which the death penalty is most often used are also the areas in which the most violent crimes occur, and vice versa, by large margins. This sounds like pretty strong evidence to suggest that the death penalty is not much of a deterrence for the average violent crime offender than is any other punishment they may receive.

Again, without universal application of justice this doesn't fly. It could just as easily go the other way and prove why those areas still keeping the detah penalty have left it on the books, as the lower crime rate areas haven't felt the need to do so.

The statistics are for crimes that are generally eligible to receive the death penalty, actually, not criminal activity across the board. If the death penalty was genuinely a legitimate deterrence, then we would see a decline in crimes committed which are generally subject to the death penalty, but we haven't. Police chiefs, law enforcement agencies, and pretty much everyone that would be in a better position to know, generally agree that the death penalty is hardly much of a deterrence at all, and certainly not enough for that reason alone to consider it justifiable.

For once, you completely missed the point of what I said. Read it again.

If you were, say, 25 years old and perfectly healthy, would you honestly choose guaranteed life imprisonment with no parole or the death penalty? I'm pretty convinced that I would choose the death penalty myself, or I might just wind up attempting to commit suicide. Life imprisonment can hardly be reduced to "free room and board". That's just a silly way of attempting to trivialize the severity of the sentence.

How do you define "proper restitution", how do you justify it, and on what grounds do you think you are right in proposing such an absurd thing? The purpose of the prison system is to keep harmful elements out of society until they are no longer deemed harmful, it is not to punish. Of course it doesn't work that way in practice, but that is generally its purpose. If we focused our prison systems not on punishment but on rehabilitation, we would be much better off.

Personally I would choose life in prison.

Prison doesn't have anything to do with keeping harmful elements out of society until they are no longer deemed harmful, because there is no way to fucking determine that. It IS to punish. Of course it doesn't work in practice, because only a fool would think that by sticking a bad apple in a barrel of bad apples you will somehow get good apples out. That is exactly what our current penal system is.

YA CAN'T REBILUHTATE A RAPIST DUHRDUHR

At least I got a laugh out of this. Anyone can be "rehabilitated". The problem is, how do you determine when someone is rehabilitated? You CAN'T. Punishment is the issue here, rehabilitation is a utopian concept that is completely illogical in practice.

 

[AchrisK]

you can't just not feed people in jail. That opens a whole other can of worms.

Let them eat the worms.

 

[AchrisK]

I see the logic in a person that wants to kill somebody not caring whether or not he has to die in order for that to happen.

You see the logic in that? I agree that in mostly passionate circumstances the murderer will not consider much of anything at all, other than their intent at the moment. But is that logic? People lack reason during crimes of passion. Amirite?

Will you not answer about the general extension of the logic that consequences are a deterrent? Do you think I am utterly wrong to expect some correlation?

You obviously (as any one individual) have a very narrow perspective. Statistics show that areas in which the death penalty is most often used are also the areas in which the most violent crimes occur, and vice versa, by large margins. This sounds like pretty strong evidence to suggest that the death penalty is not much of a deterrence for the average violent crime offender than is any other punishment they may receive.

So you're saying, by extension, that life in prison is a bigger deterrent to crimes which warrant the death penalty, right? That is exactly where that logic lands us, correct? Because if there was no correlation at all, we would be able to assume that the consequence is not a factor. So then, my logic holds up and it appears that while people consider committing murder some of them DO think about the consequences, and life in prison is less desirable than death.

 

[metal_wrath]

Grindcore and Brutal Death fans debating about the ickiness of the death penalty...

Let them eat the worms.

heh

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Metal Wrath you're a fucking imbecile. Just because Nick and I listen to "violent" music (lulz) doesn't mean we can't think logically about things in real life. Music = art. Art can be appreciated for anything it shows, and I believe the lyrics of brutal death metal fit the art they were created to accompany or be part of. The death penalty isn't appreciable because it's logically inept and is only for stupid dumbfucks like you who "hate humanity"

 

[General Zaroff]

You're so unkvlt.