Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 16:08:39 GMT -6
We all know that *most* murderers are not executed. Indeed, in CA, most murderers will die of old age, along with those ones we've sentenced to LWOP. So, I can't think we're aiming to execute them because we actually think it's about justice. I often hear the argument that if we don't kill them, they'll kill again ~ whether it's after being released, or while imprisoned. I believe there are ways to prevent this.
But, pros, would you still hold fast to executions if we did prevent them from killing again (other than each other)?
If so, what other reasons are you pro?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 30, 2018 16:32:00 GMT -6
But, pros, would you still hold fast to executions if we did prevent them from killing again (other than each other)? If so, what other reasons are you pro? No answer for that, may as well ask me if we can have a perfect world. May be a pipe dream too, maybe we could start with somehow preventing people from killing each other outside the walls first?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Apr 30, 2018 19:04:42 GMT -6
We all know that *most* murderers are not executed. Indeed, in CA, most murderers will die of old age, along with those ones we've sentenced to LWOP. So, I can't think we're aiming to execute them because we actually think it's about justice. I often hear the argument that if we don't kill them, they'll kill again ~ whether it's after being released, or while imprisoned. I believe there are ways to prevent this. But, pros, would you still hold fast to executions if we did prevent them from killing again (other than each other)? If so, what other reasons are you pro? You haven't offered "another" 100% absolutely guaranteed, prevention. Start the discussion there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 23:12:30 GMT -6
We all know that *most* murderers are not executed. Indeed, in CA, most murderers will die of old age, along with those ones we've sentenced to LWOP. So, I can't think we're aiming to execute them because we actually think it's about justice. I often hear the argument that if we don't kill them, they'll kill again ~ whether it's after being released, or while imprisoned. I believe there are ways to prevent this. But, pros, would you still hold fast to executions if we did prevent them from killing again (other than each other)? If so, what other reasons are you pro? You haven't offered "another" 100% absolutely guaranteed, prevention. Start the discussion there. Let's start with this: Lock murderers (and rapists, since we detest them too) separately from all non-violent offenders. Put guards on the walls to prevent escape, but not inside where they may be in harm's way. This way, if they do kill, they're only killing other people we kinda want dead anyway. Do not release murderers.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 1, 2018 8:43:31 GMT -6
You haven't offered "another" 100% absolutely guaranteed, prevention. Start the discussion there. Let's start with this: Lock murderers (and rapists, since we detest them too) separately from all non-violent offenders. Put guards on the walls to prevent escape, but not inside where they may be in harm's way. This way, if they do kill, they're only killing other people we kinda want dead anyway. Do not release murderers. a LOT of unnecessary expense and trouble to keep, feed, clothe and house people we "kinda" want dead anyway. but your original concept was to "prevent" them from killing again, even other despicable characters. no guarantee here. however, now that we've established that you are OK with "some" killings, why not all of them? nope, still pro. and still haven't heard of any problems caused by gary gilmore recently.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 1, 2018 8:59:34 GMT -6
Still a pro.
Next.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 11:54:00 GMT -6
Let's start with this: Lock murderers (and rapists, since we detest them too) separately from all non-violent offenders. Put guards on the walls to prevent escape, but not inside where they may be in harm's way. This way, if they do kill, they're only killing other people we kinda want dead anyway. Do not release murderers. a LOT of unnecessary expense and trouble to keep, feed, clothe and house people we "kinda" want dead anyway. but your original concept was to "prevent" them from killing again, even other despicable characters. no guarantee here. however, now that we've established that you are OK with "some" killings, why not all of them? nope, still pro. and still haven't heard of any problems caused by gary gilmore recently. Nah, it'd be cost effective because we'd need a lot less guards. And, too, as they killed each other, that'd make more room for more of them. When I said "prevent" them from killing again I was referring to preventing them from killing people that matter to us. I really don't care if they want to kill one another. Do you? They aren't killing in my name when they choose to kill each other. As to killing all of them, we both know that'll never happen.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 1, 2018 12:30:41 GMT -6
a LOT of unnecessary expense and trouble to keep, feed, clothe and house people we "kinda" want dead anyway.  but your original concept was to "prevent" them from killing again, even other despicable characters. no guarantee here. however, now that we've established that you are OK with "some" killings, why not all of them?  nope, still pro. and still haven't heard of any problems caused by gary gilmore recently. Nah, it'd be cost effective because we'd need a lot less guards. And, too, as they killed each other, that'd make more room for more of them. When I said "prevent" them from killing again I was referring to preventing them from killing people that matter to us. I really don't care if they want to kill one another. Do you? They aren't killing in my name when they choose to kill each other. As to killing all of them, we both know that'll never happen. Sorry, but killing is killing, it matters to somebodies mom, not so much me. Sooo, now that we're all ok with murderers being killed, i'd rather they were all killed in my name than they are all being fed in my name. Maybe I could finally get a tax refund.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 12:44:45 GMT -6
Sorry, but killing is killing, it matters to somebodies mom, not so much me. Wait. You can't in one breath say we shouldn't let them kill each other because they have a mother, and in the next breath say so we should kill them. Don't they still have a mother?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 1, 2018 14:29:03 GMT -6
Sorry, but killing is killing, it matters to somebodies mom, not so much me. Wait. You can't in one breath say we shouldn't let them kill each other because they have a mother, and in the next breath say so we should kill them. Don't they still have a mother? No, no, no, no. You're the one saying "some" killings matter and "some" don't. I'm simply saying "some" mom's might actually care. Me?, to h*ll with mom, she should have raised a better loser.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 1, 2018 17:41:59 GMT -6
Wait. You can't in one breath say we shouldn't let them kill each other because they have a mother, and in the next breath say so we should kill them. Don't they still have a mother? I'm simply saying "some" mom's might actually care. Me?, to h*ll with mom, she should have raised a better loser. Ouch. Why is it always assumed it is the mom's fault if she had a bad apple?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 1, 2018 18:23:29 GMT -6
I'm simply saying "some" mom's might actually care. Me?, to h*ll with mom, she should have raised a better loser. Ouch. Why is it always assumed it is the mom's fault if she had a bad apple? well, good question. maybe cause men are pigs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 18:48:10 GMT -6
I'm simply saying "some" mom's might actually care. Me?, to h*ll with mom, she should have raised a better loser. Ouch. Why is it always assumed it is the mom's fault if she had a bad apple? Gee, maybe she shoulda killed the 8 year old who showed obvious signs of psychopathy. Then, we wouldn't need to have this discussion... Except, of course, what to do with her.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 1, 2018 18:56:00 GMT -6
Ouch. Why is it always assumed it is the mom's fault if she had a bad apple? Gee, maybe she shoulda killed the 8 year old who showed obvious signs of psychopathy. Then, we wouldn't need to have this discussion... Except, of course, what to do with her. Nah, must be the fathers fault the kid is a bad apple, kill him. lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 19:04:48 GMT -6
Nah, it'd be cost effective because we'd need a lot less guards. And, too, as they killed each other, that'd make more room for more of them. When I said "prevent" them from killing again I was referring to preventing them from killing people that matter to us. I really don't care if they want to kill one another. Do you? They aren't killing in my name when they choose to kill each other. As to killing all of them, we both know that'll never happen. Sorry, but killing is killing, it matters to somebodies mom, not so much me. Sooo, now that we're all ok with murderers being killed, i'd rather they were all killed in my name than they are all being fed in my name. Maybe I could finally get a tax refund. They could be a society unto themselves. They could be made to grow their own food, sew, make their own mattresses, clothes, doctor themselves, etc. What they cannot make themselves, could easily be air-dropped to them, say once a quarter ~ along with more murderers. In Aliens 3, for example, the inmates policed themselves, and quickly learned that killing one another was a bad idea. If the population decreased, there'd be too few to take care of their physical needs. Of course, if we need less guards and the Creep Society is self-sufficient, we put a lot of folks out of work. Not sure they'd thank us for taking them out of harm's way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 19:07:10 GMT -6
Gee, maybe she shoulda killed the 8 year old who showed obvious signs of psychopathy. Then, we wouldn't need to have this discussion... Except, of course, what to do with her. Nah, must be the fathers fault the kid is a bad apple, kill him. lol Nah. Castration should suffice for him.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 1, 2018 19:20:16 GMT -6
Sorry, but killing is killing, it matters to somebodies mom, not so much me. Sooo, now that we're all ok with murderers being killed, i'd rather they were all killed in my name than they are all being fed in my name. Maybe I could finally get a tax refund. They could be a society unto themselves. They could be made to grow their own food, sew, make their own mattresses, clothes, doctor themselves, etc. What they cannot make themselves, could easily be air-dropped to them, say once a quarter ~ along with more murderers. In Aliens 3, for example, the inmates policed themselves, and quickly learned that killing one another was a bad idea. If the population decreased, there'd be too few to take care of their physical needs. Of course, if we need less guards and the Creep Society is self-sufficient, we put a lot of folks out of work. Not sure they'd thank us for taking them out of harm's way. We have a couple of islands in the great salt lake that would be perfect for that purpose. Would only require a couple of patrol boats to shoot the swimmers. But alas, they sit empty. however this plan would not change me to an anti, there is simply no good reason to be an anti.
|
|
|
Post by deathcub2000 on May 3, 2018 17:06:17 GMT -6
Read Papillion. It was a self sufficient penal colony.
I like the idea of castration...uh for rape and excessive child creating. I read of one man who fathered 11 children with 8 different women. In my opinion, he bagged his limit.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 4, 2018 8:12:57 GMT -6
I like the idea of castration...uh for rape and excessive child creating. I read of one man who fathered 11 children with 8 different women. In my opinion, he bagged his limit. The women should be sterilized, as well.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 4, 2018 9:54:27 GMT -6
But, pros, would you still hold fast to executions if we did prevent them from killing again (other than each other)? Everyone is ducking this part of the question. Would you still hold fast to executions IF we did prevent them from killing again? It's worth trying to answer, IMO, even if you think that could never happen, because it gives you/us insight into why you're really a pro. If you would execute anyway, even if there were a perfect prison system, then it's not really about protection for you. You must have other reasons for wanting to execute. As Agave used to say, protection is just gravy. A bonus. If it's all about the protection, then you should be happy with either execution or perfect-jail. So even if you think perfect-jail could never happen, just pretend for the sake of argument that it could. See where it goes.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 4, 2018 10:36:38 GMT -6
Would I still be pro if there was a PERFECT way to prevent them from killing again? No.
All I have heard so far is silly answers as to how. What anti's don't get is the many reasons for the DP are real. Prison proves it over & over to be facts. Too many kill again. Too many are victims.
Lets go back to reality now, we need to spend more energy on how to prevent so many murders . We have so much evidence to begin with on the whys. I cannot not speak for all pros's & you cannot speak for all anti's.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 4, 2018 10:49:44 GMT -6
you cannot speak for all anti's. Sure I can. On behalf of all antis, I declare that we are against the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 4, 2018 10:54:16 GMT -6
Not that they are anti, meaning what are their reasons for being anti?
Ironic, antis are in the same company as those on DR, DR inmates are anti's too.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 4, 2018 11:13:55 GMT -6
But, pros, would you still hold fast to executions if we did prevent them from killing again (other than each other)? Everyone is ducking this part of the question. Would you still hold fast to executions IF we did prevent them from killing again? It's worth trying to answer, IMO, even if you think that could never happen, because it gives you/us insight into why you're really a pro. If you would execute anyway, even if there were a perfect prison system, then it's not really about protection for you. You must have other reasons for wanting to execute. As Agave used to say, protection is just gravy. A bonus. If it's all about the protection, then you should be happy with either execution or perfect-jail. So even if you think perfect-jail could never happen, just pretend for the sake of argument that it could. See where it goes. no, i'd still be pro. it's not just about protection. there is justice, punishment, closure and not the least of all, cost. oh and one other, don't think revenge isn't a perfectly good reason. part of closure perhaps. there is no good reason to feed, clothe, house and waste money on a murderer who is never going to be a productive citizen, because in order for this "prevention" to be perfect he can never leave prison. no matter how good is behavior is. so what reason is there to keep them?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 4, 2018 11:30:30 GMT -6
you cannot speak for all anti's. Sure I can. On behalf of all antis, I declare that we are against the death penalty. You cannot speak for all anti's, what are YOUR reasons Bernard? I repeat. To clarify.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 4, 2018 11:56:29 GMT -6
You cannot speak for all anti's, what are YOUR reasons Bernard? I repeat. To clarify. Diamonds.......uuuummmm never mind.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 4, 2018 12:18:09 GMT -6
You cannot speak for all anti's, what are YOUR reasons Bernard? I repeat. To clarify. Diamonds.......uuuummmm never mind. What? I would like to know Bernard's personal reasoning for no DP.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 4, 2018 12:18:52 GMT -6
Sure I can. On behalf of all antis, I declare that we are against the death penalty. You cannot speak for all anti's, what are YOUR reasons Bernard? I have come to suspect that the real reason I'm an anti is that I was raised by antis, and then surrounded by more antis when I left home and went to college, and on it went from there. Basically, the mid-wife delivered me into a pool of warm kool-aid, and I just swam around in there for years and years. At some point I started to think about it and thought "Gee, I gotta have some rational reason for having the beliefs that I have!" But that wasn't true. I was just cruising on habit and upbringing. So I stole some post-hoc rationalizations from people who had thought about this stuff and deceived myself into thinking that those were the original reasons I had for my views. I really believed it too. Self-deceit is a powerful tool in defense of ego. Some of the post hoc rationalizations I stole were quite good, and with practice I got quite good at using them and adapting them in debate, but it doesn't change the fact that I formed the belief first, then looked around for the justification afterwards. Kinda like the Mueller inquiry. Later, I got into arguments with folks about it. The more they argued against me, the more I was sure I was right. Not because their arguments were poor and mine were better, but because they were pissing me off so much I began to identify as their implacable opponent, and became ever more determined to oppose them. In other words (I suspect) I am an anti for the same reason you are a pro.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 4, 2018 12:33:12 GMT -6
What made me go pro? Life" has taught me to make up my own mind on being pro. My parents nor anyone else even brought up political matters. Honestly.
Being a mod on an pp site, actually confirmed my stance. lol
My son Guess it is called a prison farm, all there were non violent & come & go outside as they please, on the property that is. He was there for two yrs. He wrote me a letter telling me about the pp sites, which I did not know about, that is the same time Susan smith" came on the news.
Bottom line, all that did, was confirm my stance. PRO
I could never find a common sense answer to give if I was an anti.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2018 12:37:20 GMT -6
There are something like 174,000 murderers imprisoned in the US, with maybe 2,800 on death row. Many of those on death row will die imprisoned, rather than by execution. CA, for example, has 748 (I think) DR prisoners at present, 850 murderers have been sentenced to death since 1978. We've executed 13 men in all those years.
People like to toss around the 'closure' word, but I tend to hate it. It insinuates, in my view, that the murder of a loved one can be appeased somehow.
First off, *most* murderers won't be sentenced to death.
Second, even those ones who are sentenced to death, will usually take many years before the sentence is actually carried out, when it's carried out.
Also, when the state seeks a death sentence, there are two phases (at least in CA) of the murder trial. So, it is not unusual for the trial(s) to take 3 or more years. (Ours took 3 1/2 years)
*If* a reason to execute murderers is 'closure', then, aren't all the murder victim's families entitled to said 'closure'... AND revenge?
|
|