|
Post by whitediamonds on May 13, 2018 7:28:29 GMT -6
Easy you have screwball pros's & screwball anti's. So Well, I was actually just pointing out that I have very different reasons for being anti than wanting to "save murderers". The same is true of most other antis, if this place over the years is anything to go by. Stop fighting with the straw caricature. This somehow manages to be both off topic and in violent agreement with the point I made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 9:46:10 GMT -6
Bernard, I think she was saying that the DP is a hose job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 10:24:13 GMT -6
closure is not bs. none of your solutions provide the 100% guarantee that dp does. dp has nothing to do with re-entry into society of all other criminals. and lastly, while you don't want murderers killed in "your name", I don't want money wasted on them being, fed, clothed, housed in "my" name. there are better uses for the money. I think it is BS. There've been more than 750,000 murders since 1976 in the US. In that time, we've executed less than 1500 of them. That's 0.02% of murder victims families we've offered 'closure' to. I'm wowed. That's 0.02% of murderers we've ensured via DP won't kill again. I'm equally wowed. And, you won't be feeding, clothing, and housing those 0.02% of murderers, either. But, while we waited to kill them, we spent $ to house, clothe, feed them. According to DPIC, the average cost is $90,000 a year more per death row inmate over those held in general population. That's a lot of expense to kill 0.02% of murderers.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 13, 2018 11:37:13 GMT -6
closure is not bs. none of your solutions provide the 100% guarantee that dp does. dp has nothing to do with re-entry into society of all other criminals. and lastly, while you don't want murderers killed in "your name", I don't want money wasted on them being, fed, clothed, housed in "my" name. there are better uses for the money. I think it is BS. There've been more than 750,000 murders since 1976 in the US. In that time, we've executed less than 1500 of them. That's 0.02% of murder victims families we've offered 'closure' to. I'm wowed. That's 0.02% of murderers we've ensured via DP won't kill again. I'm equally wowed. And, you won't be feeding, clothing, and housing those 0.02% of murderers, either. But, while we waited to kill them, we spent $ to house, clothe, feed them. According to DPIC, the average cost is $90,000 a year more per death row inmate over those held in general population. That's a lot of expense to kill 0.02% of murderers. how about that, not everyone gets closure. the liberal mind set explained so perfectly by WW, if everyone can't get closure, no one should get closure. no wonder hillary actually got votes. so, according to you we're not executing enough, fast enough. no argument from me. we have over 3000 people on death row. there shouldn't be more than 200 at any given time. why the hold up? the same reason, that you fail to acknowledge, is why you spout false incarceration costs and reasons for them. there is not ONE single incarceration reason for the cost of housing dp inmates to be any higher than any other inmate. not one. an orange jump suit costs the same for dp inmates as any other inmate. a bowl of post toasties costs the same for dp inmates as any other inmate, and electricity, and heating, and water and on and on and on. hell, there are fewer guards needed in most prisons for dp inmates. for hellsake WW give it a little critical thought. so, where is the problem? well for starters we have allowed endless, baseless appeals to go on for years in which the state pays for both sides of the ball. you want to fix the "system"? fix the appeals problem. (think gary gilmore model here)
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 13, 2018 12:36:05 GMT -6
Bernard, I think she was saying that the DP is a hose job. Should be, with a fire hydrant hose to put them out. Wipe the slate clean, Next. Hose Job? 1980's that can also be slang for a hooker job. Not nice WW. Did you have stormy on your mind?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 13, 2018 12:56:06 GMT -6
I do not see this as off topic.
I am going to bring up the DP & abortion.
Pro life on abortion wants an absolute. Pro abortion wants an absolute
Pro DP for all murderers an absolute Anti DP for all murderers an absolute
There are no absolutes. That is like saying,everything is black & white.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 13, 2018 13:15:18 GMT -6
I think it is BS. There've been more than 750,000 murders since 1976 in the US. In that time, we've executed less than 1500 of them. That's 0.02% of murder victims families we've offered 'closure' to. I'm wowed. That's 0.02% of murderers we've ensured via DP won't kill again. I'm equally wowed. And, you won't be feeding, clothing, and housing those 0.02% of murderers, either. But, while we waited to kill them, we spent $ to house, clothe, feed them. According to DPIC, the average cost is $90,000 a year more per death row inmate over those held in general population. That's a lot of expense to kill 0.02% of murderers. how about that, not everyone gets closure. the liberal mind set explained so perfectly by WW, if everyone can't get closure, no one should get closure. no wonder hillary actually got votes. so, according to you we're not executing enough, fast enough. no argument from me. we have over 3000 people on death row. there shouldn't be more than 200 at any given time. why the hold up? the same reason, that you fail to acknowledge, is why you spout false incarceration costs and reasons for them. there is not ONE single incarceration reason for the cost of housing dp inmates to be any higher than any other inmate. not one. an orange jump suit costs the same for dp inmates as any other inmate. a bowl of post toasties costs the same for dp inmates as any other inmate, and electricity, and heating, and water and on and on and on. hell, there are fewer guards needed in most prisons for dp inmates. for hellsake WW give it a little critical thought. so, where is the problem? well for starters we have allowed endless, baseless appeals to go on for years in which the state pays for both sides of the ball. you want to fix the "system"? fix the appeals problem. (think gary gilmore model here) LOL, really hard for some to understand that many women did not vote for hillary. There are no absolutes. hillary found that out .
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 13, 2018 13:33:27 GMT -6
Folks come up to me and are like, "Yo bro. Give us $100 so we can execute this POS." "Yo bro. Is that new English?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 14, 2018 11:13:55 GMT -6
I do not see this as off topic. I am going to bring up the DP & abortion. But I won't be talking about it on this thread. You can either start a new one, or see if other folks will engage with you. What? Absolutely none? No, it's like saying " some things are black and white".
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 14, 2018 11:16:54 GMT -6
Folks come up to me and are like, "Yo bro. Give us $100 so we can execute this POS." "Yo bro. Is that new English? Yes. You're in year 3 now.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 14, 2018 11:20:23 GMT -6
I do not see this as off topic. No, it's like saying " some things are black and white". Non sense,only if this was a perfect world.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 14, 2018 11:21:31 GMT -6
"Yo bro. Is that new English? Yes. You're in year 3 now. Yes, they are in yr 3.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 14, 2018 11:24:21 GMT -6
Non sense,only if this was a perfect world. No. Your homework this week is to review the difference between "every" and "some". If I said, "Everything is black and white" you could say, "Only if this were a perfect world." But I didn't say that. I said, "Some things are black and white".
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 14, 2018 11:25:01 GMT -6
Yes. You're in year 3 now. Yes, they are in yr 3. Hmm. Maybe we should have held you back.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 14, 2018 11:31:42 GMT -6
Non sense,only if this was a perfect world. No. Your homework this week is to review the difference between "every" and "some". If I said, "Everything is black and white" you could say, "Only if this were a perfect world." But I didn't say that. I said, "Some things are black and white". Guess what you can do with your homework assignment.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 14, 2018 11:33:26 GMT -6
Hmm. Maybe we should have held you back. Never happened.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 14, 2018 11:37:54 GMT -6
Non sense,only if this was a perfect world. No. Your homework this week is to review the difference between "every" and "some". If I said, "Everything is black and white" you could say, "Only if this were a perfect world." But I didn't say that. I said, "Some things are black and white". English lessons are not part of this thread either, but death is, no matter how or who ends life.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 14, 2018 11:50:47 GMT -6
the biggest problem to your above post Bernard, or to any anti-pro argument is that the very second the DP is abolished every single anti DP argument will immediately transfer to life in prison. innocence, cost, deterrence, discrimination, cruel and unusual arguments will remain the same. every single one. You make a good point. I think many will transfer, yes. But all? I think there are a few exceptions. E.g. if you think that the DP is wrong because it's always wrong to kill a constrained man, that argument won't work against LWOP. Would you at least agree that most of the ones that transfer will get weaker? E.g. you can make an argument against LWOP based on cost, but the cost won't be as great, and won't be wasted on pointless legal procedures. You can make an argument that LWOP is cruel and unusual. But it does not have the same appearance of being cruel, and it certainly isn't as unusual. You can make the argument that you might still incarcerate innocents. And it's true that, with both the DP and LWOP, you take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have (h/t Clint). But with LWOP you take it away more slowly, and you have a longer period in which new evidence could come to light, which gives you a better chance to stop taking it away should he turn out to be innocent. So I agree that the argument is still there, but it isn't as strong. And the counter-arguments, meanwhile, will get stronger. E.g. the pros worry about the murderer killing again. That argument is 100 times as strong when the proposal is not merely to let them continue to live in prison, but to actually release them into society to walk among our children. I don't doubt that some will argue like that. I've discovered, especially in the last two years or so, that there are many irrational people on my side of the political aisle. But do you think they would be very persuasive to the public? I suspect it's one thing to argue "hey, the compulsive serial murderer is safely locked up and guarded by professionals. Why kill him?" It's another to argue "hey, the compulsive serial murderer has been locked up too long. Why not release him?" The first is an argument that the public will (I think) seriously consider. The second is one that has a bit too much personal risk to themselves and their families. Maybe we should look at those states that have already abolished the DP. Have they gradually moved towards abolishing punishment entirely? (I mean it as a serious question. It would be interesting if we could show that punishments gradually got weaker and weaker in the states that abolished the DP.)
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 14, 2018 11:56:05 GMT -6
No. Your homework this week is to review the difference between "every" and "some". If I said, "Everything is black and white" you could say, "Only if this were a perfect world." But I didn't say that. I said, "Some things are black and white". Guess what you can do with your homework assignment. You're only hurting yourself with that attitude. Give the assignment a try. You might surprise yourself.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 14, 2018 12:05:23 GMT -6
Guess what you can do with your homework assignment. You're only hurting yourself with that attitude. Give the assignment a try. You might surprise yourself. I'm not hurting myself at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2018 12:07:11 GMT -6
how about that, not everyone gets closure. the liberal mind set explained so perfectly by WW, if everyone can't get closure, no one should get closure. no wonder hillary actually got votes. so, according to you we're not executing enough, fast enough. no argument from me. we have over 3000 people on death row. there shouldn't be more than 200 at any given time. why the hold up? the same reason, that you fail to acknowledge, is why you spout false incarceration costs and reasons for them. there is not ONE single incarceration reason for the cost of housing dp inmates to be any higher than any other inmate. not one. an orange jump suit costs the same for dp inmates as any other inmate. a bowl of post toasties costs the same for dp inmates as any other inmate, and electricity, and heating, and water and on and on and on. hell, there are fewer guards needed in most prisons for dp inmates. for hellsake WW give it a little critical thought. so, where is the problem? well for starters we have allowed endless, baseless appeals to go on for years in which the state pays for both sides of the ball. you want to fix the "system"? fix the appeals problem. (think gary gilmore model here) We can't get (supposed) closure for the vast majority. Wonder how many of that 0.02% actually got your (supposed) closure. I'm guessing not very many of that 0.02 at all. You say that I'm 'spouting false incarceration costs', yet offer nothing to back up what you're spouting. Probably because you can't back up what you're spouting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2018 12:14:19 GMT -6
Just FYI, you will NEVER hear this anti (or most of the antis I know) argue against LWOP.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 14, 2018 12:17:11 GMT -6
the biggest problem to your above post Bernard, or to any anti-pro argument is that the very second the DP is abolished every single anti DP argument will immediately transfer to life in prison. innocence, cost, deterrence, discrimination, cruel and unusual arguments will remain the same. every single one. Many will transfer, yes, but not all. E.g. if you think that the DP is wrong because it's always wrong to kill a constrained man, that argument won't work against LWOP. Most of the ones that transfer will get weaker. E.g. you can make an argument against LWOP based on cost, but the cost won't be as great, and won't be wasted on pointless legal procedures. You can make an argument that LWOP is cruel and unusual. But it does not have the same appearance of being cruel, and it certainly isn't as unusual. You can make the argument that you might still incarcerate innocents. And it's true that, with both the DP and LWOP, you take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have (h/t Clint). But with LWOP you take it away more slowly, and you have a longer period in which new evidence could come to light, which gives you a better chance to stop taking it away should he turn out to be innocent. So I agree that the argument is still there, but it isn't as strong. And the counter-arguments, meanwhile, will get stronger. E.g. the pros worry about the murderer killing again. That argument is 100 times as strong when the proposal is not merely to let them continue to live in prison, but to actually release them into society to walk among our children. I don't doubt that some will argue like that. I've discovered, especially in the last two years or so, that there are many irrational people on my side of the political aisle. But I doubt they will be very persuasive to the public. It's one thing to argue "hey, the compulsive serial murderer is safely locked up and guarded by professionals. Why kill him?" It's another to argue "hey, the compulsive serial murderer has been locked up too long. Why not release him?" The first is an argument that the public will seriously consider. The second is one that has a bit too much personal risk to themselves and their families. We should look at the states that have already abolished the DP. Have they gradually moved towards abolishing punishment entirely? (I mean it as a serious question. It would be interesting if you could show that punishments gradually got weaker and weaker in the states that abolished the DP.) I pretty much base my argument on the gun control scene. Do you remember when ALL they wanted to ban were cheap, saturday night specials? Now look at today. Theyll never be satisfied. I really expect the same for the death penalty and life in prison.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 14, 2018 12:29:11 GMT -6
We can't get (supposed) closure for the vast majority. Wonder how many of that 0.02% actually got your (supposed) closure. I'm guessing not very many of that 0.02 at all. You say that I'm 'spouting false incarceration costs', yet offer nothing to back up what you're spouting. Probably because you can't back up what you're spouting. I don't care if only ONE person feels closure. Now about the rest, explaining the blindingly obvious can be hard with closed minds like yours but I'll try again, because apparently asking you to critically think it through with basic sense didn't work. I gave you a few examples of why there is not 90 grand in additional incarceration costs for a dp inmate vs any other. So maybe you can explain where the 90 grand in additional "incarceration" costs come from. Then I suggested where that cost might come from and it wasn't incarceration costs. You want to save money then fix the appeals process, it's out of control. You don't scrap a program that has a glitch without first fixing the glitch then assess the program.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 14, 2018 12:38:57 GMT -6
I pretty much base my argument on the gun control scene. Do you remember when ALL they wanted to ban were cheap, saturday night specials? Now look at today. Theyll never be satisfied. I really expect the same for the death penalty and life in prison. Hmm. That's an interesting comparison. I haven't ever considered it before. My first reaction is to agree with you that the gun control folks have their eyes on a complete ban. It seems to me that when most pretend to only want moderate change, they're being disingenuous. And there's a big liberal overlap between antis and gun control folks. So if they would argue inch by disingenuous inch in the one case, they would probably stoop to the same tactics in the other. Agreed. Moreover, I believe there are liberal societies that regard LWOP as inhumane. So that's some further evidence for your view that if you give the liberals an inch, they'll creep towards a yard. One difference that seems relevant to me, though, is that there are populations that have been persuaded to adopt a total gun ban, or pretty close, e.g. in the UK and Australia. No population to my knowledge has been successful in arguing for the eradication of all punishment. I think this is some support for my position, that the public would not be persuaded to abolish all punishment if it meant releasing, say, compulsive serial murderers back into our midst.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 14, 2018 13:07:27 GMT -6
And i was just being facetiously negative when I said we'd abolish all punishment. I do that a lot.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 14, 2018 14:01:01 GMT -6
Just FYI, you will NEVER hear this anti (or most of the antis I know) argue against LWOP. yeah you/they will. as soon as some 17-18 year old kid has spent 50-60 years in prison and has been a model prisoner and the chances of him at this point killing again is pretty much non existent. isn't that pretty much the argument for the charles manson follower recently discussed? if we do away with the DP then we might as well do away with LWOP and not fool ourselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2018 21:02:45 GMT -6
Just FYI, you will NEVER hear this anti (or most of the antis I know) argue against LWOP. yeah you/they will. as soon as some 17-18 year old kid has spent 50-60 years in prison and has been a model prisoner and the chances of him at this point killing again is pretty much non existent. isn't that pretty much the argument for the charles manson follower recently discussed? if we do away with the DP then we might as well do away with LWOP and not fool ourselves. You haven't a clue what I'll do. Probably because you don't know me. Probably because you've never asked. I will NEVER argue against LWOP. Ask any pro who actually knows me and you'll find I will not change my attitude toward murderers. Not in this lifetime, nor the next. You want to discuss the one after that, be my guest. But, again, you've no reason to believe that I would EVER argue against LWOP. Charles Manson didn't get LWOP. It wasn't a sentencing option when he was convicted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2018 21:16:13 GMT -6
I don't care if only ONE person feels closure. Now about the rest, explaining the blindingly obvious can be hard with closed minds like yours but I'll try again, because apparently asking you to critically think it through with basic sense didn't work. I gave you a few examples of why there is not 90 grand in additional incarceration costs for a dp inmate vs any other. So maybe you can explain where the 90 grand in additional "incarceration" costs come from. Then I suggested where that cost might come from and it wasn't incarceration costs. You want to save money then fix the appeals process, it's out of control. You don't scrap a program that has a glitch without first fixing the glitch then assess the program. There are a number of reasons the death penalty costs more. My mind is closed because I know the truth, I've researched it. You didn't offer a single example of how death row inmates cost no more than other sentences. You offered BS and nothing to support that BS. DP cases cost more because their trials cost more, take far longer, and need expertise that other murder trials do not. One of the reasons their trials cost (double) is because there are two phases (or trials). Then, there are the costs of appeals which cost more because (again) expert lawyers are involved, because we're talking about killing them. They're generally housed separately and individually, which most (even on Level 4 ~ not sure what they're called elsewhere, but 'worst of the worst' who aren't on death row) other murderers are not. I'm not about to fix a system I have no faith in, and do not support. You want it fixed to reduce costs, I think that'd be on you. Meanwhile, til you offer up evidence I'm wrong, I'll leave my numbers standing.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 14, 2018 21:26:17 GMT -6
[quote source="/post/630156/thread" timestamp="1526328061" author=" Charles Manson didn't get LWOP. It wasn't a sentencing option when he was convicted. True. He had a DP sentence, then they stopped the DP & it became LWP. Of course he was up for many parole hearings & denied. Thank God.
|
|