|
Post by kelly on Nov 7, 2009 23:03:17 GMT -6
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me,[/b][/u] is not a tough call." --John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence.[/color]
Life in Prison is not a deterrant? Does it make it any better to murder a muderer? Didn't murdering the murder make you a murderer? Morally unacceptable. Shouldn't the money being spent on death penalty cases be better spent finding the murders who have not been caught yet. There are guilt people who have not been caught. Yet we are worried about murdering a murder.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Nov 7, 2009 23:46:46 GMT -6
No. Many criminals do quite well in prison and like it. They're still dangerous, and other inmates and COs are still at risk. "Murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being. An execution is therefore not murder. See above. To some. [/size][/size][/font][/quote] We're a representative republic. 38 states have the DP as law because that's what the majority wants. As you can tell, we've heard every one of your questions (and endured the obvious moral outrage) a thousand times. Thanks for stopping by.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Nov 8, 2009 8:58:25 GMT -6
One, there is enough money to do both.
Two, your question assumes money would be diverted from paying for capital defense to the police. That will never happen. What will happen is that all that money and resources will be diverted to fighting lwop and life sentences.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Nov 9, 2009 14:18:23 GMT -6
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, [/b][/u] is not a tough call." --John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence.[/color] [/quote] biased? this is one of the BEST quotes I've ever read about the death penalty
|
|
|
Post by kelly on Nov 9, 2009 18:41:42 GMT -6
No. Many criminals do quite well in prison and like it. They're still dangerous, and other inmates and COs are still at risk. prison is no cake walk no one really likes it. they are caged up like animals and that is a deterrent especially without the opportunity of ever being free. They may be dangerous but there are many more dangerous people walking the street, at your kids schools, watching every move you make... yet you would rather worry about killing someone than focusing on a bigger problem. so why put them to death so many other things that deserve time and attention
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Nov 9, 2009 18:51:03 GMT -6
Google robert pruett. He murdered a corrections officer in Texas while serving a 99 year for murder. Tell me again that life w/o parole changes people please.
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Nov 9, 2009 18:51:27 GMT -6
One, there is enough money to do both. Two, your question assumes money would be diverted from paying for capital defense to the police. That will never happen. What will happen is that all that money and resources will be diverted to fighting lwop and life sentences. if there is enough money to do both then why is there a national defecit? the death penalty is usless spending because everyone will eventually die, that is guarenteed. why spend money when it will happen on its own? if the budget cut capital punishment, that money would be available to use on other resources.
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Nov 9, 2009 18:55:32 GMT -6
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, [/b][/u] is not a tough call." --John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence.[/color] [/quote] biased? this is one of the BEST quotes I've ever read about the death penalty[/quote] again biased
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Nov 9, 2009 18:56:16 GMT -6
if there is enough money to do both then why is there a national defecit? Because the state and federal budgets are different. Do some reading on our political process, i.e., state vs. federal spending, and get back to us.
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Nov 9, 2009 18:58:22 GMT -6
Hey, Cali, looks like we got us a live one.
Hey, kelly, go to the main page and lets kick this up a notch.
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Nov 9, 2009 19:11:23 GMT -6
Google robert pruett. He murdered a corrections officer in Texas while serving a 99 year for murder. Tell me again that life w/o parole changes people please. first off, i never said that life w/o parole Changes anybody. I said "it is a deterrent" for the same reason people do not speed for fear that they will get a ticket. most people will not kill another person for fear that they will spend the rest of their lives in a cage. the one example that you gave, the man was never comming home, what did he have to lose? add another 15-20 or a life sentence.... The pepole who chose to be a correctional officer or a police officer are greatly appreciated for the risk they encounter on a daily basis. however, it was their choice and their line of work they choose in which they knew the consequences. just like an airline pilot knows that the plane can crash and the 7-11 clerk know that they could potentially be robbed. Its not right that that correctional officer had to die however, he knew what the job description was. "surrounded by criminals on a daily basis"
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Nov 9, 2009 19:14:06 GMT -6
prison is no cake walk no one really likes it. they are caged up like animals and that is a deterrent especially without the opportunity of ever being free. I know it seems that way to a naif like you, but you're wrong. I know from experience in my own family that criminals have no problem with prison. My brother was a guest of the state many times. It never bothered him. It's a free country. Until such persons act on their criminal thoughts, we have no right to interfere with them. You haven't described a "bigger problem" yet. Our criminal justice system is not mutually exclusive. We focus on the most serious crimes because they're the most serious crimes.
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Nov 9, 2009 19:39:21 GMT -6
richard cartright was deterred. gary etheridge was deterred. john mohammed will be deterred.
pruett murdered a corrections officer. That is like killing a police officer in society. And pruett was sentenced to death.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Nov 9, 2009 21:28:13 GMT -6
One, there is enough money to do both. Two, your question assumes money would be diverted from paying for capital defense to the police. That will never happen. What will happen is that all that money and resources will be diverted to fighting lwop and life sentences. if there is enough money to do both then why is there a national defecit? the death penalty is usless spending because everyone will eventually die, that is guarenteed. why spend money when it will happen on its own? if the budget cut capital punishment, that money would be available to use on other resources. 1. There is too much spending on pork which has nothing to do with capital punishment. 2. Everyone will die some day? How unprofound. You are more worried about evil murderers not dying a natural death than his innocent victims who aren't allowed to die a natural death. Biased. 3. And I just explained to you that if capital punishment was abolished the money and resources would just be redirected to abolishing lwop and life sentences. That means more innocent people will die. For every execution from 11-18 murders are deterred. Also, with out the DP hanging over their heads, there will be less plea bargaining and more murderers getting out of prison. If more go to trial, it will run up the costs of representing them in trial and on appeal. And contrary to urban legend, the appeals for a death penalty case are the same as any other major felony case. So, there is no true savings. In fact, in the long run, it will cost us more.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Nov 10, 2009 18:00:22 GMT -6
biased? this is one of the BEST quotes I've ever read about the death penalty again biased any opinion can be considered biased including your opinion that my opinion is biased. and just why exactly is "biased" considered bad?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Nov 10, 2009 18:03:34 GMT -6
No. Many criminals do quite well in prison and like it. They're still dangerous, and other inmates and COs are still at risk. so why put them to death because it's a better deterent than prison
|
|
|
Post by kelly on Nov 11, 2009 21:08:35 GMT -6
An Essay On Crimes and Punishments by: Cesare Beccaria read and learn something
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Nov 11, 2009 21:21:53 GMT -6
An Essay On Crimes and Punishments by: Cesare Beccaria read and learn something This website: Read and learn a lot.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Nov 11, 2009 22:18:07 GMT -6
An Essay On Crimes and Punishments by: Cesare Beccaria read and learn something do you one better. I've lived it and learned it. what would you like to know/learn?
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Nov 11, 2009 22:25:50 GMT -6
Yeah, but you haven't live it in 18th century Italy, have you? Hell, there was no 18th century Italy. It was still just a bunch of kingdoms.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Nov 12, 2009 11:28:39 GMT -6
Yeah, but you haven't live it in 18th century Italy, have you? Hell, there was no 18th century Italy. It was still just a bunch of kingdoms. I haven't lived in 18th century America either. point??
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Nov 12, 2009 12:05:53 GMT -6
Oh, brother. So much for sarcasm to make a point. The guy she was referring to, died in 1793 or something. I hardly consider his opinion on the death penalty, based on 18th century life in a conglomeration of foreign kingdoms, where there were none of the constitutional rights or investigatory techniques we have today, relevant to our use of the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Nov 12, 2009 13:54:41 GMT -6
Oh, brother. So much for sarcasm to make a point. The guy she was referring to, died in 1793 or something. I hardly consider his opinion on the death penalty, based on 18th century life in a conglomeration of foreign kingdoms, where there were none of the constitutional rights or investigatory techniques we have today, relevant to our use of the death penalty. OK, didn't particularly sound that way, but OK
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Nov 12, 2009 15:30:40 GMT -6
What else could it sound like? It's self-evident that you're not over 200 years old.
|
|
|
Post by kelly on Nov 16, 2009 17:27:01 GMT -6
you haven’t lived in 1780 B.C. either but how long has the death penalty been practiced? since the beginning of recorded history- the Code of Hammurabi we are not living in 18th centaury anything we are still practicing the death penalty today just less torture all of the people who were put to death in history for bogus crap like witchcraft---all you have to have is one or two people to say that you did it and your pretty much gone. that beyond a reasonable doubt goes out the window
"it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death once in a way."-Moses Maimonides
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Nov 16, 2009 18:26:55 GMT -6
How long have murderers been killing fellow human beings?
Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Nov 17, 2009 4:32:23 GMT -6
"it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death once in a way."-Moses Maimonides And no its not
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Nov 17, 2009 8:14:31 GMT -6
What if it was your brother Steve, my father or my son. No person should be executed until there is a failsafe legal procedure. Period. It shouldnt happen. Thats why in my heart i wouldnt support its reintroduction into the Uk, the last guy to be executed here was innocent. Nope, not one innocent life is worth it. If it can be proved with out doubt, i.e 100% failsafe, thats its a slamdunk then maybe otherwise no way hozay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2009 8:32:02 GMT -6
No. Many criminals do quite well in prison and like it. They're still dangerous, and other inmates and COs are still at risk. "Murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being. An execution is therefore not murder. See above. To some. [/size][/size][/font][/quote] We're a representative republic. 38 states have the DP as law because that's what the majority wants. As you can tell, we've heard every one of your questions (and endured the obvious moral outrage) a thousand times. Thanks for stopping by. [/quote] Wrong. Murder is the premeditated taking of life of another person. Unlawful killing is manslaughter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2009 8:34:21 GMT -6
Google robert pruett. He murdered a corrections officer in Texas while serving a 99 year for murder. Tell me again that life w/o parole changes people please. Well with the appeals process the way it is they have approx 12 years on death row to murder a corrections officer. Why not? They are facing death anyway so may aswell take a few guards with them. Executions need to be carried out quicker.
|
|