Yanks only: Who are you voting for on Tuesday?

Who you voting for, nucka?

  • McKinney/Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Keyes/Rohrbough (AIP)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jay/Knapp (Boston Tea)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Amondson/Pletten (Prohibition)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Weill/McEnulty (Reform)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • La Riva/Puryear (Socialism and Liberation)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    68
The death penalty isn't appreciable because it's logically inept and is only for stupid dumbfucks like you who "hate humanity

:rolleyes:

If anything, prison is logically inept (see above apple analogy). To claim the death penalty is for those who hate humanity is nothing but ludicrous rhetoric.
 
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.

Or, alternatively, that if the death penalty, in fact, does not work as a deterrent, there is no logical, moral or ethical reason for it to be implemented, except for our own personal vindictive pleasure.

Also, there is the fact that there is always a chance, however slim, that the person who is executed is innocent. Contemplate the implications of that, then, and tell me that it does not negate any positive effect you have conjured up in your head.
 
Yanks? Are we in the 18th century? Is George Washington still our president? Call us Americans.

Anyway...I'm voting for Obama. Is he the greatest guy on earth? Probably not. Is he the least stinky of the piece of crap candidates we have to choose from? Yes. Easy enough decision for me.
 
I think it's crazy that it costs more to put someone to death than it does to house them for life. I say we speed that process up in cases where the facts speak clearly. I think execution methods need not be so "humane". I put that in quotes because I think many quick methods of death would be called inhumane because they are brutal. But the subject will endure no more pain or suffering than with our current methods. Truthfully the guillotine is very humane, it's just not nice to look at. But then what death is? So I think we need quick brutal forms of death. I believe that the swifter the process and more brutal the method of execution, the more likely it will be to start becoming a deterrent.

It's not the method of execution that is staggeringly expensive. It's the appeals process that raises costs. Even those convicted of a capital crime have the right to appeal the decision. The appeals process makes certain that innocent people aren't executed. Without this process we would see an increasing number of innocent people convicted and executed for crimes they didn't commit.
 
1) The alternative to the death penalty is life in prison without parole. They still cannot commit that second crime.

Um, you can commit plenty of fucking crimes in prison. Some people are simply too dangerous, aggressive, or pure fucking nuts to allow them the chance to do more harm. Banning the death penalty altogether just leaves society exposed to walking time bombs.

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.

No, but this is not about punishment - it's about self-defense. It's absurd to allow rogue states with clearly malicious intent to acquire nuclear weapons just because "a crime has not been committed yet". In the same way, society is justified in taking preventative measures to remove threats before they turn into a more serious problem.

In short, a person or group cannot adequately defend itself if it is only allowed to take reactive measures.
 
I think speeding up the process may aid in lowering the cost of executions, so that they no longer cost more than life imprisonment. I don't understand where all the money goes, but streamlining processes typically saves money.

My point is that regardless of how 'streamlined' the process is, it's not even going to put a dent in our prison system and the costs associated with it. For more on that, see "War on *****".

Besides, these are still human beings we're dealing with here, and even a hardened criminal deserves a dignified death. How humanely we execute criminals reflects upon how society as a whole values a human life. It's pretty morally sketchy to brutalise the death penalty just to save a few bucks.


edit: ***** = "Dru gs"
 
My point is that regardless of how 'streamlined' the process is, it's not even going to put a dent in our prison system and the costs associated with it. For more on that, see "War on *****".

Besides, these are still human beings we're dealing with here, and even a hardened criminal deserves a dignified death. How humanely we execute criminals reflects upon how society as a whole values a human life. It's pretty morally sketchy to brutalise the death penalty just to save a few bucks.


edit: ***** = "Dru gs"

A rare occasion in which I agree with vihris. I am completely for the legalization of drugs. They are a rediculous drain on our system and the "War on ****** has done about as little good as the "War on Terror". It's a drain on taxpayers all the way around.