Author Topic: The Death Penalty, for it or against it (Read 3393 times)

Toad · « **Reply #75 on:** April 19, 2005, 09:37:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Exactly!

And everyone else should have the same freedom of choice.

Yep, and they should have the same freedom to pay for it themselves.

I don't think the government should be involved in the funding of it in any way, shape or form.

Agree?

Sandman · « **Reply #76 on:** April 20, 2005, 12:25:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Agreed and all for public execution.

And I maintain the death penalty is a deterrent.

I know of nobody who has ever been executed under the death penalty who has ever commited another crime afterwards.

Deterrance and anti-recidivism aren't the same thing.

Steve · « **Reply #77 on:** April 20, 2005, 12:28:53 AM »

Quote

Deterrance and anti-recidivism aren't the same thing.

More than one of my professors taught that public execution is the single most effective deterrent to capital crime. I think I'll side w/ their learned opinion than your opinion. unless of course you can tell me why you came to the conclusion that it isn't a deterrent, or is it just a hunch?

Sandman · « **Reply #78 on:** April 20, 2005, 12:38:13 AM »

Read it again... I said deterrance and anti-recidivism are not the same thing. I have no doubt that capital punishment is 100% effective against recidivists.

Steve · « **Reply #79 on:** April 20, 2005, 12:43:50 AM »

I read what you wrote, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were making a point, my mistake.

Sandman · « **Reply #80 on:** April 20, 2005, 12:54:20 AM »

Is capital punishment a deterrant?

Who knows? Good luck trying to prove it one way or the other. Has there been a truly objective and controlled study ever? Or is it just theory, conjecture, and statistical analysis performed by people that are already have a forgone conclusion in mind?

I know this much... the states that have capital punishment still have murders... so the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent is somewhere between 0% and 99% (depending on the study).

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #81 on:** April 20, 2005, 01:05:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC

I'd like to see an electricution or two...maybe some people will be deterred by it.

Actually I'd like to see public stoning

Sandman · « **Reply #82 on:** April 20, 2005, 01:06:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Actually I'd like to see public stoning

I think there are still some fine third world countries that enjoy the practice. You could plan a vacation around it. Take the whole family even.

Raider179 · « **Reply #83 on:** April 20, 2005, 01:31:02 AM »

Executions per year

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exetab.htm

Year Executions Police reported murders
1980 0
1981 1 ==== 22,520
1982 2 ==== 21,010
1983 5 ==== 19,310
1984 21 ==== 18,690
1985 18 ==== 18,980
1986 18 ==== 20,610
1987 25 ==== 20,100
1988 11 ==== 20,680
1989 16 ==== 21,500
1990 23 ==== 23,440
1991 14 ==== 24,700
1992 31 ==== 23,760
1993 38 ==== 24,530
1994 31 ==== 23,330
1995 56 ==== 21,610
1996 45 ==== 19,650
1997 74 ==== 18,210
1998 68 ==== 16,970
1999 98 ==== 15,530
2000 85
2001 66
2002 71
2003 65
2004 59

Police reported murders came from

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnscj.pdf pg 99

couldnt find data on 2000-2004

You can definitely see since they stepped up executions in 1995ish the number of homicides has decreased. The reports I read seemed to indicate that murder is the only crime that severity of punishment seems to make a difference in. Other crime the contributing factor seemed to be the unemployment %

lazs2 · « **Reply #84 on:** April 20, 2005, 08:31:32 AM »

oboe... yes, I mean that there is allways choice... I am pro chice in everything... you can choose to murder or steal or lie or...not. a mother has no more right to kill a baby in her womb that could survive than she does to kill a 1 year old in the crib.

It is indeed a moral choice but if we (mothers) can kill a viable human being simply because it is in her then we have no morals.. we admit that killing out of convienience or mercy is ok.

If the mother were told that she could not abort but would have the baby removed prematurely... How many would do that? They simply want to wash their mistake away... even tho studies show that they feel guilt for the rest ofv their lives.

murderers have the same morals on killing.. they kill when it is convienent for them. They are a danger to society tho and need to be put down humanely... better luck in the next life.

toad and buster have explained it better than me... abortion is killing a human being. If we do it we need to at least admit that we are killing an innocent for either, convienence or... mercy.

when we kill criminals we are doing it in self defence.

lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #85 on:** April 20, 2005, 10:06:22 AM »

I am for, the recidivism arguement is sufficeint for me alone.

midnight Target · « **Reply #86 on:** April 20, 2005, 11:36:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Yep, and they should have the same freedom to pay for it themselves.

I don't think the government should be involved in the funding of it in any way, shape or form.

Agree?

So you are pro-choice as long as you have the money?

oboe · « **Reply #87 on:** April 20, 2005, 11:40:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
oboe... yes, I mean that there is allways choice... I am pro chice in everything... you can choose to murder or steal or lie or...not. a mother has no more right to kill a baby in her womb that could survive than she does to kill a 1 year old in the crib.

It is indeed a moral choice but if we (mothers) can kill a viable human being simply because it is in her then we have no morals.. we admit that killing out of convienience or mercy is ok.

If the mother were told that she could not abort but would have the baby removed prematurely... How many would do that? They simply want to wash their mistake away... even tho studies show that they feel guilt for the rest ofv their lives.

murderers have the same morals on killing.. they kill when it is convienent for them. They are a danger to society tho and need to be put down humanely... better luck in the next life.

toad and buster have explained it better than me... abortion is killing a human being. If we do it we need to at least admit that we are killing an innocent for either, convienence or... mercy.

when we kill criminals we are doing it in self defence.

lazs

Lazs,

I'm pretty sure your position on abortion is consistent with the Roe v Wade decision. That is, last trimester abortions can be prohibited because the fetus probably could survive outside the mother. But 1st and 2nd trimester abortions are not prohibited. I believe you are implying its not murder if the mother aborts the fetus before it is developed enough to survive on its own.

As far as life always choosing life, if that were true there would be no such thing as suicide, no?

Toad -

I'm against the war in Iraq. Should the troops there have to fund themselves because I disagree with it?

scott123 · « **Reply #88 on:** April 20, 2005, 11:46:17 AM »

Against it;)

lazs2 · « **Reply #89 on:** April 20, 2005, 02:33:58 PM »

suicide is an aberation brought on by extreme pain and the menatly unstable state that puts you in... The pain, be it mental or pysical, is so great that it overcomes the natural desire to survive.

I really don't know where to draw the line on abortion... I have copped out and went with "viable outside the womb"....

I feel that abortion that is not because of gross defects or rape is because the person is so moraly bankrupt that they screw even tho they are too lazy to form a relationship or use birth control...

Abortion out of convienience is probly just.... wrong.

Killing killers is correct... they need to be put out of their misery and we need to be protected from them.

lazs