Pullin' The Plug

[Ash]

Genlemen,
  Many good points here! Who decided capitol punishment is supposed to be a deterent to murder? The key word here is "punishment". Our legal system try's to fit the punishment to the crime, right or wrong. You can never deter criminals by threats of punishment. I find it hard to believe any person considering or participating in a crimal act, thinks they will be caught. And then considers the penal codes and punishments before doing the crime.
   These laws are imposed by the will of the people, and in this country you have the right to try and change ANY law that you disagree with. Get out and Vote!
   StSanta; the majority of executions are done by injection now. Very few if any, use gas or the electric chair.
   Our laws are what keep us great. And our ability to change them, make us even greater.

OTR,
Ash

 

< whew gets off the soap box...:-)>

[Ripsnort]

 

Originally posted by StSanta:
Gotta agree with blur here.

There have been, and will be, cases where a man or woman has been proven not guilty after having been executed.

Show me one case in the last 50 years where this is true..(Clue, there isn't one!)

[Ripsnort]

An inmate on death row was scheduled to be put to death by firing squad the following morning.
One of the prison guards asked the inmate if he wanted something special for his last meal. The
inmate declined the offer. Later, the prison guard asked the inmate if there was something special
he wanted to do on his final day. Again, the inmate declined the offer. The following morning, as he
inmate was being put before the firing squad, the guard asked him if he wanted a cigarette and a
blindfold. "No," the inmate said, "just get it over with."

"Well, is there anything that I can do for you before you go?" asked the guard. The inmate thought
for a moment, then replied, "Actually, music is my life. One thing I would really like would be to sing
my favourite song, from beginning to end, without any interruptions." The guard nodded and
agreed. "Go ahead," said the guard. The inmate started, "One billion bottles of beer on the wall..."

[leonid]

Blur,

I agree with you.  Murder is murder.  Whether a rapist kills a 10 year old, or society kills a criminal.  To decide if capital punishment is legal, or not, is up to the society in question.  But, morally, there is absolutely no difference.  Capital punishment is simply government-sanctioned murder.  One can justify such a thing, based on a number of religious, political, or legal arguments, but taking a life that does not immediately threaten yours is murder.

My opinion, of course.

[Naso]

Rip, i dont remember the name but in the last 6 months in Texas a man was executed, and the people and the judges and the governor themselves knew was'nt him the murder well before the execution, they executed him just because the procedure was respected.

This is just one example.

Another think, the photo and the story you put in your earlier post was hurting  , but was emotional too, and if you want to discuss rational you have to avoid the emotions, talking with big numbers need to be cold and rational (and maybe cynic a little  ).

StSanta, as Ash noticed, the big difference between the two legal systems (the US and the European one), is the aim they have, the correction and the punishment, in the case of death sentence you have the full application of a punishment, someway near to revenge, in fact the victim's parents (is this the word?) are allowed to enjoy the show  .
In other cases the punishment is less... definitive and (i heard this, dunno if true) the US "correctional" system try to recover the subject to a social beeing, before the end of punishment.
On the other side, the Euro concept aim to isolate the subject from society and try to recover him in long terms, based to the concept that NOBODY, even the state, have the right to kill.

But we all have to understand there are two problems here we have to not undervaluate (it's even english this? sorry guys  ).

First, the justice is administrated by mens, by definition fallable, and, worst, they usually dont know how exactly the facts where, so they have to guess (or bet).

Second, both systems act AFTER the crime has done, and none of the two society try to prevent and avoid more crimes, to deter is not a solution, education is the best solution.

As RAM pointed, one of the big problems of the US justice system is the weight the money have, if you are rich you have good hope to be found inocent, if you are poor you are almost sure to be found guilty, and this is somethink you know.

Finally, Cabby, your attitude in the last post,

 

I assume you are referring to the USA. If you are, you are full of Bulls***. Slavery still exists in the world today. The USA has made more people FREE in more PLACES than any other country that has ever existed. Dunno where you live, but it's more than likely you would be somebody's slave right now if it weren't for the USA. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died ending Slavery in our own country, not to mention the hundreds of thousands who died(and the trillions of $ spent) ending/preventing Slavery the world over. Comments like yours are enough to make US Isolationism sound sensible.

is more indicated in another thread: "the ugly american", where you can represent yourself as a good example of the subject.  

p.s.
After "the ugly..." and the Handgun threads i was asking myself when the death penalty argument arise to our attention.  

Now we can stop with the UScentric arguments and hopefully start to open our minds to different worlds and cultures.  

Cosmic peace, brothers    

[Naso]

Lol Ripsnort, i've just readed the joke, very funny.

       

[blur]

Okay, now I see the light. I vote for a congressman. This is easy because,
since there's only two parties, there's not a lot of choice to begin with.
My man's elected! He goes to Washington and as soon as he puts his feet up
on his desk he's approached by a representative of the electric chair
industry. At first he eschews the man but after a two-week trip to Tahiti, a
set of steak knives and 50,000 shares of stock in the up and coming
Trashzapper Corporation his viewpoint on capitol punishment does a 180.

So now, not only is he voting for capitol punishment he also extols the
virtues of the new Trashzapper Model 2000 to his colleagues. Explaining
nuances like the non-skid surfaces, vomit bag attachments and optional solar
powered battery pack.

With the government contract my congressman gets filthy rich.

One year later I see him in a local grocery store.  Being a proper
God-fearin' Second Amendment supportin' Ammurrican I pull a 45-magnum
handgun on him and blow him into the frozen food section.

I'm arrested and being poor white trash I can't mount a proper legal
defense. So now I sit on death row for fifteen years playing swap the salami
and praying for a cloudy day when they roll out the Trashzapper Model 2000
with the optional solar powered battery pack.

Thanks for clearing this up fellas.

[Ripsnort]

 

Originally posted by Naso:
Rip, i dont remember the name but in the last 6 months in Texas a man was executed, and the people and the judges and the governor themselves knew was'nt him the murder well before the execution, they executed him just because the procedure was respected.

This is just one example.

Give me facts and data.  I garantee you there is not one case in the last 50 years that didn't have substantial evidence against the defendant.  Other than his plee that "I didn't do it" doesn't cut the mustard when they have their own blood on the weapon.

[Ripsnort]

 

Originally posted by blur:
Okay, now I see the light. I vote for a congressman. This is easy because,
since there's only two parties, there's not a lot of choice to begin with.
My man's elected! He goes to Washington and as soon as he puts his feet up
on his desk he's approached by a representative of the electric chair
industry. At first he eschews the man but after a two-week trip to Tahiti, a
set of steak knives and 50,000 shares of stock in the up and coming
Trashzapper Corporation his viewpoint on capitol punishment does a 180.

So now, not only is he voting for capitol punishment he also extols the
virtues of the new Trashzapper Model 2000 to his colleagues. Explaining
nuances like the non-skid surfaces, vomit bag attachments and optional solar
powered battery pack.

With the government contract my congressman gets filthy rich.

One year later I see him in a local grocery store.  Being a proper
God-fearin' Second Amendment supportin' Ammurrican I pull a 45-magnum
handgun on him and blow him into the frozen food section.

I'm arrested and being poor white trash I can't mount a proper legal
defense. So now I sit on death row for fifteen years playing swap the salami
and praying for a cloudy day when they roll out the Trashzapper Model 2000
with the optional solar powered battery pack.

Thanks for clearing this up fellas.

What other option did you have in mind for politics?  How about China!  How about Marxism!

[Ripsnort]

His views are the same as mine:

A review of Capital
                      Punishment
                      Is the death penalty a deterrent against crime?

                                by Nicholas Fabian

                      Capital punishment is the administration of death penalty by
                      the state to an individual who committed a crime which,
                      based on its laws, mandates the death penalty. It is capital,
                      because the offence is extremely serious, and it is
                      punishment because it is given in response to some heinous
                      crime committed by the perpetrator.

                      The objective of capital punishment.

                      The objective of capital punishment is to punish individuals
                      who committed murder or other heinous crimes against
                      innocent people. Opponents of the death penalty claim that
                      "Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime." There are
                      absolutely no legal requirements mandating that an
                      execution has to function as a deterrent to crime. The
                      argument, that "it is not a deterrent to crime", is only a red
                      herring, a feeble attempt to confuse the issue. The only
                      principal question is: Does it accomplish the mandated
                      punishment? And the answer to that question is an
                      unconditional, yes. If, in fact, capital punishment also helps
                      to prevent some crime in the future, that is only an added
                      benefit gained from the capital punishment process. Each
                      execution of a criminal is a positive proof of the state's
                      moral and legal authority to carry out the punishment; and a
                      validation that the process works. The conviction in itself
                      may not deter the criminal, but the execution always does.
                      Although neither mandated by law nor required on moral
                      grounds, capital punishment is a 100% effective deterrent
                      against crimes of the criminal who's death-sentence is
                      being carried out. In all of human history, not one single
                      executed murderer ever committed another crime.

                      Crime deterrent certainty.

                      With unfailing regularity, the opponents of capital
                      punishment will quote recent statistical data which indicates
                      that there is no decline in the murder rate after the
                      introduction of capital punishment. Misleading assertions
                      based on the fraudulent statistical data are the everyday
                      tools of social saboteurs. So, let's isolate the problem.
                      Assume, that there are two people living on an island.
                      Number One murders Number Two, and for that crime,
                      Number One, the murderer, is executed. The application of
                      capital punishment guarantees, with 100% certainty, that all
                      crime on the island will be deterred. As the population of
                      the island increases, the certainty factor of deterred crime,
                      decreases. With a population of 1,000 the certainty value is
                      one in 1,000, and with ten million, it is one in ten million. In
                      this case, eliminating one member of a large sample is not,
                      and can not be, statistically significant. For the general
                      population, the deterrent difference between 1/10,000,000
                      and 1/10,000,000 minus one, is meaningless.

                      Introducing fraudulent statistical comparisons.

                      Applying statical analysis comparisons of one specific
                      murder to the rate of a city or to an entire country and
                      expecting to see significant changes in overall rates, is not
                      rational. Eliminating ONE additional murder from a yearly
                      total of twenty thousand murders in a country will only
                      change the rate by 1/20,000s. Those are the facts.
                      Eliminating that same single murderer from the crime
                      statistic of the household, street, or neighborhood where
                      the murder occurred, will dramatically reduce the crime
                      rate for those effected areas.

                      Another problem with the collected data is that, even in
                      countries where capital punishment is available, such as the
                      United States, capital punishment sentences are seldom
                      carried out. With the various legal maneuvers available to
                      death-row inmates, the average delay of an execution is well
                      over ten years. In 98% of the cases, death sentences given
                      for murder and rape will never be carried out. Therefore, it
                      is not surprising that the minute value it represents in the
                      total murder rate, is not readily highlighted by intentionally
                      misleading statistical methods. The "justice system", if one
                      can call it that, has been so terribly subverted by legal
                      saboteurs that it is almost totally paralysed by its own
                      asinine, absurd, and contradictory laws. The well know,
                      "revolving-door" justice, is a classical example of judicial
                      mis-management and criminal stupidity. If all murderers and
                      rapists were executed tomorrow, it most certainly would
                      sent a strong message to all other potential social deviates.
                      As long as the legal system is permitted to be manipulated
                      by legal saboteurs, vocal minority gangs, and left-wing
                      "social engineers" — the future of real justice and the
                      possibility of equal protection for the victims' rights is,
                      rather bleak. "Justice is the punishment of the guilty and
                      the acquittal and fair compensation of the innocent, every
                      time. That is justice."

                      Punishment yes, vengeance no.

                      Opponents of the death penalty also claim that capital
                      punishment is immoral because it is, in their view, nothing
                      but vengeance. The assertion is a categorical lie; any
                      attempt to blame the victim is a despicable act of social
                      barbarism. Capital punishment is not vengeance, but a
                      consequence of a heinous crime committed by the criminal.
                      Consequence, yes, vengeance no. The execution of the
                      criminal for his crimes could be called vengeance, if the
                      courts permitted the victim's relatives and friends to carry
                      out the death sentence using instruments of torture,
                      identical or similar to the ones which were favoured by
                      Jesuit priests during the Inquisition. Now, that would be
                      vengeance. In fact, current methods of execution are very
                      humane.

                      Who initiated the force.

                      The execution of murderers, rapists, and other criminals
                      who committed capital offences is the result of their own
                      action which was initiated by them, against innocent
                      people. People who initiate physical force against other
                      individuals are criminals, people who respond to that force
                      with force, are not. They are acting in self defence, and self
                      defence is always justified under natural law. It is absolutely
                      critical to be able to distinguish between the acts of the two
                      different individuals; one is a murderer, the other one is an
                      innocent victim; or a legally constituted organization of the
                      state, acting on behalf of the victim. People who can not
                      perceive the difference, are either unable to reason or
                      morally bankrupt. If in doubt who the criminal is, just ask
                      the question: "Who initiated the force?"

                      Methods of execution.

                      The Justice System's approach to implement capital
                      punishment was, and still is, utterly absurd. The
                      introduction and use of hanging, electric chair, gas
                      chamber, guillotine, and fatal injection, certainly provides
                      ample proof of an eclectic assortment of equipment,
                      mechanical inaptitude, and judicial stupidity. What would a
                      reasonable person do to learn about efficient ways to
                      destroy human life? Well, examining the history of warfare
                      might be a good start. What is the most efficient and
                      reliable selective killing tool devised by men, up to the
                      present day? Firearms, of course! Guns were proven to be
                      successful by the documented destruction of millions of
                      lives in many wars, therefore, the logical choice of
                      execution should be a bullet to the back of the head. The
                      method is simple, reliable, fast, practical, and humane. It is
                      absolutely certain that opponents to the death penalty
                      would, vehemently, object to it. Not because of the
                      certainty or quickness of death, but because the
                      propaganda value of an efficient and humane execution is
                      significantly less than an unpredictable theatrical execution
                      of a murderer by electric chair.

                      Anyone who objects to capital punishment should create a
                      Will & Last Testament and deposit it at their lawyer's
                      office. The Will should specify that in case they are
                      murdered, raped, or tortured—their murderer, rapist, or
                      torturer—should not be executed. Members of the Jury
                      considering the case should be given access to the written
                      wishes of the (dismembered) deceased. On the other hand,
                      people who want to impose their belief system on others
                      are social terrorists; and they should be treated as such.

                      Conclusions:

                       1.Capital punishment is a punitive action imposed by
                          the state on individuals for committing capital crimes.

                       2.Although neither mandated by law nor required on
                          moral grounds, capital punishment is a 100%
                          effective deterrent against the crimes of the criminal
                          who's death-sentence is being carried out.

                       3.Capital punishment is not vengeance, but a
                          consequence of a heinous crime committed by the
                          criminal. The execution of the criminal for his crimes
                          could be called vengeance, if the courts permitted the
                          victim's relatives and friends to carry out the death
                          sentence using instruments of torture, identical or
                          similar to the ones which were favoured by Jesuit
                          priests during the Inquisition. Now, that would be
                          vengeance. In contrast to the atrocities of the crimes,
                          current methods of execution are extremely humane.

[NATEDOG]

Naso, you are thinking of Gary Graham, who had previously been in jail for rape, armed robbery, and countless other crimes, all by the age of 22. The only eye witness heard in the murder/armed robbery case was the only eye witness who said it was him who did it. 6 others said it was not him. And that alone started the debate. But what all the protester don't tell you, is that This eye witness is the only one who got a close and clear view of the suspect. Gary Graham was guily as charged. And a lot of bleeding heart americans wasted alot of time and money defending this career criminal......
I'm sorry, but I have very strong views in favor of the death penalty. I actually knew one of the last guys executed in Texas. Jessy San Miguel. He sat next to me in English class. I use to skateboard with him when I was younger. One night me and some friends where coming home late, and wanted some food, Taco Bell was voted out. Little did we know, that choice saved our lives. Because at that time, Jessy and his friend was in the process of robbing the Taco Bell we were going to go to. He then took all the employees in to the walk-in freezer, and shot them in the back of the head, one girl was pregnant, he shot her in the stomach. he kept shooting till the gun was empty. The first police officer on the sceen, fainted at the horriffic site. they had to squeegee out the blood to find all the shell casings. I get sick every time I think about it.......
It's ironic, the anti death penalty activists didn't really say much when Jessy got executed.... It seems like they actually agreed with this one. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it.

------------------
Nathan "NATEDOG" Mathieu
Art Director
HiTech Creations
-=HELLFIRE SQUAD=-

".... And on the eighth day, God created beer. "

[Toad]

Now, I'm not trying to lob a grenade into the crowd but sometimes I get to thinking and that's always dangerous.

I see there is a large difference in opinion on Captial Punishment between the Europeans and the Americans.

There's probably no denying that everyday USA is a more violent place than everyday Europe. We could argue the reasons till the cows come home and not agree.

There is also absolutely denying that if you want to kill on grand scale, Europe's the place. "World Wars Are Us!"

Internally, the US has only had one major and really bloody conflict, the Civil War. After that we went back to knocking each other off one by one on a random basis. And kill your neighbors over religion? Not here.

Fighting our next-door international neighbors? Well, a little bit, but no major wars on the scale anywhere close to what happened in Europe. Now, it would be unthinkable, beyond comprehension to invade Canada or Mexico.

So, I wonder to myself...are the US citizens the famous "type A" personalities? We get mad, act quickly on an individual basis and then just as quickly have remorse/seek forgiveness?

And are the Europeans the type that save up all that anger and then really cut loose every 40 years or so, quickly catching and surpassing any paltry US attempt to alter the world's population?

Like I said, thinking is dangerous.     Sometimes I wonder about me.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-11-2000).]

[Tac]

Capital Punishment as a deterrence... it aint working. So why is it still up? The only thing it has accomplished is the killing of 30 something innocents.

If it ain't broke, dont fix it. If it aint working, replace it.

[StSanta]

A rebuke of A review of Capital punishment...
 

Capital punishment is the administration of death penalty by the state to an individual who committed a crime which, based on its laws, mandates the death penalty. It is capital, because the offence is extremely serious, and it is punishment because it is given in response to some heinous crime committed by the perpetrator.

This part is not up to debate or what we're debating, so will leave it alone.
 

                         
The objective of capital punishment.

The objective of capital punishment is to punish individuals who committed murder or other heinous crimes against innocent people.

Again, I'd like to question just how punishing being put to death humanely really is. A few seconds, and gone are any chances of actually punishing the criminal; death is, at least to the physical body, the final destination. Without the biological faculties to facilitate thinking, it is impossible to punish someone or something; the brief minutes where the punishment is actively working is, ironically enough, when the person is alive and aware of the death sentence hanging over his or her head.

It is also interesting to note that the author has defined the death penalty as a *punishment* - taking the an eye for an eye approach in a sense. Nowhere does he mention that the primary mission is for society to remove unwanted elements in order to secure that no further harm can be done by them. This assertion made by the author alone is highly debatable and enough to shoot big enough holes in his argument for it to be too weak for a "perfect" way such as the death penalty.

 

Opponents of the death penalty claim that "Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime." There are absolutely no legal requirements mandating that an execution has to function as a deterrent to crime.

At which point the author forgets that it is the pro death penalty people who bring up the detterent argument, only to be countered by the anti death penalty folks.
 

The argument, that "it is not a deterrent to crime", is only a red herring, a feeble attempt to confuse the issue. The only principal question is: Does it accomplish the mandated punishment? And the answer to that question is an unconditional, yes.

Well, circular argument, a logical fallacy. What this argument is about is the death penalty. The author is using the premise to prove his conclusion, and the other way around. In essence, he is saying "it's in the law that people shhould be put to death when convicted of certain crimes. And people are put to death. Therefore, the law is fair.

Of course it it does. Just like when I am sentenced to pay a fee for a crime where the punishment is a fee does. The author is himself using a red herring.
 

If, in fact, capital punishment also helps to prevent some crime in the future, that is only an added benefit gained from the capital punishment process. Each execution of a criminal is a positive proof of the state's
d legal authority to carry out the punishment; and a validation that the process works.

Crime deterrent certainty.

Arguing just like before, the author commits another logical fallacy; begging the question. Essentially, this fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. What we are *debating* here is the very legal authority to carry out the death penalty.

 

The conviction in itself may not deter the criminal, but the execution always does.
[/quote}
Red herring even according to the author himself, but let us pursue it. Did it deter the criminal from the crime? No; if it did, there wouldn't have been a crime in the first place. Does it prevent the criminal from commiting another crime? It does, but the US legal system has, at large as far as I know, not the power to punish you for something you have not done. In the case of preparation to commit say bank robbery, that is what you're being punished for; not the robbery itself.

Once again, I must disagree with the author, based on his flawed logic on some issues and inaccurate use of the word detterent.

                         
Although neither mandated by law nor required on moral grounds, capital punishment is a 100% effective deterrent against crimes of the criminal who's death-sentence is being carried out. In all of human history, not one single executed murderer ever committed another crime.

Well, this rounds out to 0/0; which according to my Java book is NaN, not a number. Fallacious use of mathematics. Allow me to explain yourself; once you're dead and deceased, and your body has begun to rot, decay or has been burned, you are no more. To satisfy those of you who believe in an afterlife, I should add "in this world". So, 0 crimes being committed by 0 people would give us a percentage of either infinity or NaN. Infinitely many people committed infinitely many crimes, or, on the other side, no person committed any crime. Which is indisputable, since there was no person around to commit one. Alas, I must disagree with the author once again.
 

                         
With unfailing regularity, the opponents of capital punishment will quote recent statistical data which indicates  that there is no decline in the murder rate after the
introduction of capital punishment. Misleading assertions based on the fraudulent statistical data are the everyday tools of social saboteurs. So, let's isolate the problem.

The author concludes that this is a red herring; i.e irrelevant information brought into a debate to obfuscate it, he certainly spends a lot of time and energy on it. Red herrings are to be shown as such, and dismissed. The author has failed to do either.
 

Assume, that there are two people living on an island. Number One murders Number Two, and for that crime, Number One, the murderer, is executed. The application of capital punishment guarantees, with 100% certainty, that all crime on the island will be deterred. As the population of the island increases, the certainty factor of deterred crime, decreases. With a population of 1,000 the certainty value is one in 1,000, and with ten million, it is one in ten million. In
this case, eliminating one member of a large sample is not,  and can not be, statistically significant. For the general population, the deterrent difference between 1/10,000,000  and 1/10,000,000 minus one, is meaningless.

Total agreement about the statistics bit; what the author forgets is that with an increase in crime, follows (and, as the author, I assume a "perfect" world for this example) a proportional number of convictions and carrying out of penalties. Our world ain't no two man island, and murder per person statistics are easy to find, in places having the death penalty, and in places not having them. The authors claim that the statistics used by death penalty opponents are inaccurate and useless is unfounded.

                         
Introducing fraudulent statistical comparisons.

Applying statical analysis comparisons of one specific murder to the rate of a city or to an entire country and expecting to see significant changes in overall rates, is not
rational. Eliminating ONE additional murder from a yearly total of twenty thousand murders in a country will only change the rate by 1/20,000s. Those are the facts.
Eliminating that same single murderer from the crime statistic of the household, street, or neighborhood where  the murder occurred, will dramatically reduce the crime  rate for those effected areas.

I agree completely with the author. However, this is not what is being discussed; elimination from that household, street or neighborhood can have many forms; "resocialization", incarceration, or death. We are debating which form is the overall better one. Furthermore, in his opening statement, the author argues that the primary objective of the death penalty is the penalty bit. In effect, he is himself creating the very same red herring he accuses the death penalty of using.
 

Another problem with the collected data is that, even in countries where capital punishment is available, such as the United States, capital punishment sentences are seldom carried out. With the various legal maneuvers available to death-row inmates, the average delay of an execution is well over ten years.

Aye, and such safe guards *must* be there to *ensure* that no innocents are executed. In other words, you'd need a reorganisation of the legal structure, and with it, increased funding by the magnitude to ensure the expedient carrying out of penalties. It could be argued that if this happens, crime rate will drop. This is, however, speculation and until we have some numbers it is for all purposes useless. And to reiterate, this is still a red herring. Is a country willing to spend additional funds in a social experiment? Don't know; in the case of the USA, we have to ask them and their leaders.

 

In 98% of the cases, death sentences given for murder and rape will never be carried out.

Would like to know the author's source for this number. Also would like to know if he means murder AND rape, or murder and rape; i.e murder separately and rape separately, or rape followed by a murder (or the other way around).

 

Therefore, it is not surprising that the minute value it represents in the total murder rate, is not readily highlighted by intentionally misleading statistical methods.

Here, the author is arguing that the current system which employs the death penalty doesn't work effectively as a detterent. He is also making use of another fallacy, argumentum ad hominem, or an attack on the person(s), not the argument. Really, there is little use for these in a serious debate.

 

The "justice system", if one can call it that, has been so terribly subverted by legal saboteurs that it is almost totally paralysed by its own asinine, absurd, and contradictory laws. The well know, "revolving-door" justice, is a classical example of judicial mis-management and criminal stupidity. If all murderers and rapists were executed tomorrow, it most certainly would sent a strong message to all other potential social deviates.

It would indeed. But, it is not feasible, since there are numerous safeguards inserted in order to ensure no innocent man or woman is executed. There is a saying "the wheels or justice roll slowly", and it is universal, and not only applicable to the US.
 

As long as the legal system is permitted to be manipulated by legal saboteurs, vocal minority gangs, and left-wing "social engineers" — the future of real justice and the possibility of equal protection for the victims' rights is, rather bleak.

A case of pot calling kettle black. Both sides have saboteurs, and all "manipulation" is not sabotage, but honest attempts at justice seen from either points perspective. The author appears to be right wing or centrist, since those two conveniently are left out of the list of saboteurs.
 

"Justice is the punishment of the guilty and the acquittal and fair compensation of the innocent, every time. That is justice."

Justice in its simplest form, aye. Justice as a medium to ensure peace and control in a society as a whole has more to it. Since it is a red herring I will not argue this further unless asked to.
 

                         
Punishment yes, vengeance no.

That, I think, would differ depending on whether you are personally involved in a case.
 

                         
Opponents of the death penalty also claim that capital punishment is immoral because it is, in their view, nothing but vengeance. The assertion is a categorical lie; any attempt to blame the victim is a despicable act of social barbarism. Capital punishment is not vengeance, but a consequence of a heinous crime committed by the criminal.

And yet another logical fallacy; converse accident/hasty generalization. It occurs when  one forms a general rule based on very few examples. All opponents do not claim it is vengeance. Some opponents will agree on leaving vengeance totally out of the argument, as I will. And, while it is a lie to the author, it is not to others; this is to a large extent a question of opinion. Which I won't bother to discuss here, since they are just that.
 

                         
Consequence, yes, vengeance no. The execution of the criminal for his crimes could be called vengeance, if the courts permitted the victim's relatives and friends to carry out the death sentence using instruments of torture, identical or similar to the ones which were favoured by Jesuit priests during the Inquisition. Now, that would be vengeance.

Vengeance is a great different things to a great different number of people. Same logical flaw as before; not everyone needs an eye for an eye for vengeance. Still, this argument is a red herring, according to the assertions stated by the author about the purpose of the death penalty.

In fact, current methods of execution are very humane.

Indeed, agreed, with at least one exception.

 

                         
Who initiated the force.

The execution of murderers, rapists, and other criminals who committed capital offences is the result of their own action which was initiated by them, against innocent people.

This is not being disputed. What is being discussed is what punishment is appropriate.
 

People who initiate physical force against other individuals are criminals, people who respond to that force force, are not.

In general, yes. There are times when a preemptive strike is needed to ensure security, such as the case may be with burglars. And there are cases when a person might misunderstand anothers intent and see it as physical force, and react with the very same. And react first.
 

They are acting in self defence, and self defence is always justified under natural law.

It seems we are going through the book of logical fallacies from A to Z. This one is called The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature. For more info on this and other fallacies, see http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
It is not a complete list, but lists the more common ones.
 

It is absolutely critical to be able to distinguish between the acts of the two different individuals; one is a murderer, the other one is an innocent victim; or a legally constituted organization of the
state, acting on behalf of the victim.

Here, the author equals killing a criminal that has been neutralized (i.e is in custody, has been taken away from his potential victim and so forth) to self defense. To use an analogy to show the error in this line of argument, I provide this:

I've just been attacked by a murderous gun toting right wing fascist who supports the death penalty. Due to my extreme skills, I manage to subdue him, tie him up, knock him unconscious and place him inside a protective cage of the size of 1*1*1 meters. Now, I wait for the police to arrive, and then kill him, claiming self defense.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

 

People who can not perceive the difference, are either unable to reason or morally bankrupt. If in doubt who the criminal is, just ask the question: "Who initiated the force?"

Again, this is not what we are debating. Another red herring; soon we have enough to feed North Korea. We are debating how the individual is to be punished. Si my way of "self defense" appropriate, or is an alternative better?

 

Methods of execution.

The Justice System's approach to implement capital punishment was, and still is, utterly absurd. The introduction and use of hanging, electric chair, gas chamber, guillotine, and fatal injection, certainly provides ample proof of an eclectic assortment of equipment, mechanical inaptitude, and judicial stupidity.

Well, they all work, sort of. Three of the four are pretty effective, if not humane.
 

What would a reasonable person do to learn about efficient ways to destroy human life? Well, examining the history of warfare
might be a good start. What is the most efficient and reliable selective killing tool devised by men, up to the present day?

Standing at ground zero as a nuclear device goes off. No one has ever survived that.
 

Firearms, of course! Guns were proven to be
successful by the documented destruction of millions of lives in many wars, therefore, the logical choice of execution should be a bullet to the back of the head. The method is simple, reliable, fast, practical, and humane.

While tere are documented cases of people surviving a shot to the head, there aren't that many. But there are even fewer of people surviving the guillotine (one springs to mind, an aristocrat who was so fat that th  bladew cut into his shoulder, and a man had to stand on the blade to drive it through).

Even so, the most effective way would be using a very large calbre weapon, such as both barrels of a shotgun. A bit messy and primitive, but since it is effectiveness we are discussing, it is pretty much the king.
 

It is absolutely certain that opponents to the death penalty would, vehemently, object to it. Not because of the certainty or quickness of death, but because the propaganda value of an efficient and humane execution is significantly less than an unpredictable theatrical execution of a murderer by electric chair.

Hm, the author's use of unpredictable is rather suspect; unpredictable would, to me, imply that a relatively large number of attempts fail. From what I've read, most executions run smoothly. The theatrical bit can also be debated since very few witness the actual executions, and the filmed ones I've seen on documentaries (lethal injection) consisted of strapping the man in, letting him say some final words, and then executing him. I've also been told that the elexctric chair is used only in a few places and few cases, but my source might be wrong.

It may vary, but is certainly not relevant to this discussion.
 

Anyone who objects to capital punishment should create a Will & Last Testament and deposit it at their lawyer's office. The Will should specify that in case they are murdered, raped, or tortured—their murderer, rapist, or torturer—should not be executed.

Won't give 'um any certainty for one. And it won't do much to stop the dp in all but the fewest cases, where you are personally involved. Bad solution.
 

Members of the Jury  considering the case should be given access to the written
wishes of the (dismembered) deceased.

The "(dismembered)" comment brings us to another logical fallacy; appeal to emotion. And, as far as I know; the job of the jury is to determine guilt, not give punishment. For that, the US court system AFAIK rely on a judge. I might be wrong.
 

On the other hand, people who want to impose their belief system on others are social terrorists; and they should be treated as such.

Which is exactly what death penalty proponents are doing  (Image removed from quote.).

This latest comment deserves a whole page for itself; if I disagree with the belief system of the majority, are they terrorists? Or am I? Or are we given the right to hold different opinions? And do we not all have instances where our personal belief system is contradicted by the law?

But, red herring, to be sure. here Chinese children, have some; the North Koreans are full.
 

Conclusions:
1.Capital punishment is a punitive action imposed by the state on individuals for committing capital crimes.

Well, this comclusion was also the premise and an established fact not being disputed.
 

2.Although neither mandated by law nor required on moral grounds, capital punishment is a 100% effective deterrent against the crimes of the criminal who's death-sentence is being carried out.

See above for discussion about it.
 

3.Capital punishment is not vengeance, but a
consequence of a heinous crime committed by the criminal. The execution of the criminal for his crimes could be called vengeance, if the courts permitted the victim's relatives and friends to carry out the death sentence using instruments of torture, identical or
similar to the ones which were favoured by Jesuit priests during the Inquisition. Now, that would be vengeance.

This has also been dealt with above.

 

In contrast to the atrocities of the crimes,
current methods of execution are extremely humane.

And, according to the author in the case of the electric chair, unreliable  (Image removed from quote.)

Heh, that was my brain exercise for this day; this is how I try to keep it going and open. I could (and probably should) write a similar rebuke of the death penalty opponents arguments  (Image removed from quote.).

Ripsnort, I understand what you're saying through this man. It's just that the arguments *as he puts them*, aren't too compelling due to the large number of logical errors and inconsistencies. I am quite sure that others can put them more eloquently and without the logical errors, and that'd give me a much harder time.

Woohoo, length record; this has got to be one of the longest post on this board.

Eat THAT allied opportunist schweinhunde!


------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime

[AKFokerFoder+]

Well, when some dirtbag rapes and kills a 10 year old girl here in Texas, I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that the scumbag will die.

You Europeans can feed and pamper dirtbags like that all you want.

It may not deter the murderer, but it gives me great satisfaction to know that scum like that is removed from the gene pool.

BTW I am opposed to lethal injections, I think we should hang them in the town square, and sell tickets.

Someday that slimeball that blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma will pay, and I will smile when I hear that.  

You Europeans turn your IRA and other bombers back loose on the streets.  Do you smile when you here that?


[This message has been edited by AKFokerFoder+ (edited 08-11-2000).]