Ron 10
Recommended Posts
Ron 10
QuoteCP willl eventually go away altogether in the US, just like it did in the civilized world.
So the US is not civilized? Then why live here John?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 10
QuoteWhen it comes to capital punishment hardly anyone addresses the problem of executing innocent people. To me that alone is more than enough to switch all capital punishment to life without parole (the hard labor one)
So its OK to sentance an innocent person to hard labor till they die, but not death?
Why not work on only convicting the guilty parties rather than just throwing the innocent in jail for a life of hard labor...
Innocent people being convicted is a SEPERATE issue.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Quote
No one has proven that it is cheaper to keep them alive.
You haven't proven that it's cheaper or easier not to.
QuotePnishment is NOT necessary? What do you want to do reward criminals?
Nice spin on that one. I didn't say punishement wasn't necessary, I said capital punishement wasn't necessary, even if it is deserved.
kallend 2,026
QuoteQuoteBy reasonable I mean: Cheaper
cheaper is not reasonable...Its just cheaper.Quotekallend has provided those stats
He has provided nothing...This is an old debate and no side was able to prove a cost benefit.QuoteWhy spend the extra money just to see them dead?
No one has proven that it is cheaper to keep them alive.QuoteIn Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing wrong with punishment when it is justified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say that it's not justified, just not necessary.
Pnishment is NOT necessary? What do you want to do reward criminals?
If you keep saying that official reports from state governments showing that it's more expensive to execute than to life imprison aren't proof, then what exactly are you looking for in the way of proof? Maybe Alan Greenspan posting here would satisfy you.
Just saying "that's not proof" when a state publishes its costs is meaningless chatter.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
QuoteNice spin on that one. I didn't say punishement wasn't necessary, I said capital punishement wasn't necessary, even if it is deserved.
You said nothing of CP.
I wrote: There is nothing wrong with punishment when it is justified.
You wrote
QuoteI wouldn't say that it's not justified, just not necessary.
And who are you to decide what is necessary?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Quote
You said nothing of CP.
Well, given the fact that it is the topic at hand, I figured that you could put two and two together.
Quote
I wrote: There is nothing wrong with punishment when it is justified.
And I agreed.
Quote
And who are you to decide what is necessary?
And who are you to decide that capital punishement is necessary? I'm just asking why we should go to all of the extra trouble to execute someone, when it's more effecient to just let them rot in jail.
I'll agree with you on most things, but you're ignoring alot of good information on this one.
QuoteAnd who are you to decide what is necessary?
Simple: You kill someone intentionally, you die.
Quote
Simple: You kill someone intentionally, you die.
Really? So the person that gives the lethal injection should be executed as well?
QuoteQuote
Simple: You kill someone intentionally, you die.
Really? So the person that gives the lethal injection should be executed as well?
Fine, amend my statement to "extrajudicially kill someone..." or "Murder someone." One is the legally sanctioned elimination of society's feces, the other is Murder.
There's a difference between illegal murder and a state-sanctioned execution. The condemned get off easy, being euthanized. Try getting beaten to death or stabbed, like some of the victims.
QuoteQuoteQuote
Simple: You kill someone intentionally, you die.
Really? So the person that gives the lethal injection should be executed as well?
Fine, amend my statement to "extrajudicially kill someone..." or "Murder someone." One is the legally sanctioned elimination of society's feces, the other is Murder.
There's a difference between illegal murder and a state-sanctioned execution. The condemned get off easy, being euthanized. Try getting beaten to death or stabbed, like some of the victims.
I'm not trying to defend the actions of the criminals at all, I'm trying to make the point that it isn't as simple as it seems.
Ron 10
QuoteIf you keep saying that official reports from state governments showing that it's more expensive to execute than to life imprison aren't proof, then what exactly are you looking for in the way of proof? Maybe Alan Greenspan posting here would satisfy you.
Just saying "that's not proof" when a state publishes its costs is meaningless chatter.
And last time we went through this I posted Government studies that showed keeping them alive was more expensive.
Your studies are not worth more than mine.
Claiming only your studies are "good" is silly, and not professional.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 10
QuoteAnd who are you to decide that capital punishement is necessary?
I'm not, a jury is or a judge based on the system in place.
QuoteI'm just asking why we should go to all of the extra trouble to execute someone, when it's more effecient to just let them rot in jail.
For ever study that shows its more effecient, there is one that says it is not.
You seem to be ignoring that.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 2,026
QuoteQuoteIf you keep saying that official reports from state governments showing that it's more expensive to execute than to life imprison aren't proof, then what exactly are you looking for in the way of proof? Maybe Alan Greenspan posting here would satisfy you.
Just saying "that's not proof" when a state publishes its costs is meaningless chatter.
And last time we went through this I posted Government studies that showed keeping them alive was more expensive.
Your studies are not worth more than mine.
Claiming only your studies are "good" is silly, and not professional.
The only link you posted that I can find is not from a government site, but from one called "prodeathpenalty.com" which does not exactly sound objective. Can you provide the government links again please?
While we're waiting, here's a nice official study on costs from Kansas:
www.kslegislature.org/postaudit/audits_perform/04pa03a.pdf
and from Tennessee
www.comptroller.state.tn.us/orea/reports/deathpenalty.pdf
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
Isn't a baby a born fetus? Not your definition, but an objective definition.
A better definition would be based on viability. It's legitimate to rule out most third trimester abortions as a result. But since both sides have slippery slope fear mentality, it's all or nothing.
You know, a few months ago I would have bet on Anthony Kennedy to be the next Chief Justice. However, I dont' think conservatives will allow that given the nature of his opinion in Roper v. Simmons that ended executions of those under 18 that came on the heels of Lawrence v. Texas that struck down sodomy laws.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the Lawrence opinion. I DO have a problem with his opinion in Roper. In his opinion, he cited to studies from social science and even the rest of the world in determining that executions of those under 18 is "cruel and unusual." HE went on to describe how studies demonstrate that juveniles (under 18) are irresponsible and succumb to peer pressure and don't have a developed character.
Kennedy admitted that he drew a line. My problem is that the line was arbitrary. What this opinion did is take away from the juries or the courts the ability to determine the factors that Kennedy lists.
In saying that executions should not be allowed for juveniles because they are immature, irresponsible and lack character, with some exceptions, he posited a rule that denies the ability to determine the exceptions.
What is more reasonable? Stating that a jury must find that the 17 year-old defendant is mature, has a developed character and understands responsibility or simply saying "Nobody under 18?"
I didn't comment on this thread until I had a chance to read the case. I've read it, and I must say that this represents judicial encroachment upon the legislature. The undercurrent of the opinion is that executions of those under 18 are immoral. I believe that this is not the purpose of the court to do this, but the legislature.
And, I find O'Connor's dissent to be better than Scalia's, which is also odd for me.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the Lawrence opinion. I DO have a problem with his opinion in Roper. In his opinion, he cited to studies from social science and even the rest of the world in determining that executions of those under 18 is "cruel and unusual." HE went on to describe how studies demonstrate that juveniles (under 18) are irresponsible and succumb to peer pressure and don't have a developed character.
Kennedy admitted that he drew a line. My problem is that the line was arbitrary. What this opinion did is take away from the juries or the courts the ability to determine the factors that Kennedy lists.
In saying that executions should not be allowed for juveniles because they are immature, irresponsible and lack character, with some exceptions, he posited a rule that denies the ability to determine the exceptions.
What is more reasonable? Stating that a jury must find that the 17 year-old defendant is mature, has a developed character and understands responsibility or simply saying "Nobody under 18?"
I didn't comment on this thread until I had a chance to read the case. I've read it, and I must say that this represents judicial encroachment upon the legislature. The undercurrent of the opinion is that executions of those under 18 are immoral. I believe that this is not the purpose of the court to do this, but the legislature.
And, I find O'Connor's dissent to be better than Scalia's, which is also odd for me.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,990
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>The other one is a fetus, a baby in a woman's womb, who has done
> absolutely nothing . . .
Nor have the dead Iraqi children done anything wrong.
>and it was decided that his life should be terminated because the
> inconvenience to the mother...
And how do you know that? Perhaps she was exposed to teratogenic substances, and the child might be born deformed. Perhaps she did not know she was pregnant and did massive quantities of drugs while in the early stages of pregnancy, when the embryo is most susceptible to damage from such substances. Or perhaps the child would be born into an environment that would cripple it mentally. Or perhaps the pregnancy would put the mother's life at risk.
Who is the best person to make that call? The mother, not you. You just don't have the right to make that decision.
>and the other is an ARMED CONFLICT against someone who had a
>proven human brutality, lenghty record...are far from the same thing.
Someone decided it was OK to kill thousands of people to bring about a desired political goal. If it's OK to kill thousands of living, breathing children for politics, surely it's OK to kill a clump of cells that may someday be a child with no arms or no face, or that will someday put someone's life at risk.
> absolutely nothing . . .
Nor have the dead Iraqi children done anything wrong.
>and it was decided that his life should be terminated because the
> inconvenience to the mother...
And how do you know that? Perhaps she was exposed to teratogenic substances, and the child might be born deformed. Perhaps she did not know she was pregnant and did massive quantities of drugs while in the early stages of pregnancy, when the embryo is most susceptible to damage from such substances. Or perhaps the child would be born into an environment that would cripple it mentally. Or perhaps the pregnancy would put the mother's life at risk.
Who is the best person to make that call? The mother, not you. You just don't have the right to make that decision.
>and the other is an ARMED CONFLICT against someone who had a
>proven human brutality, lenghty record...are far from the same thing.
Someone decided it was OK to kill thousands of people to bring about a desired political goal. If it's OK to kill thousands of living, breathing children for politics, surely it's OK to kill a clump of cells that may someday be a child with no arms or no face, or that will someday put someone's life at risk.
QuoteThe undercurrent of the opinion is that executions of those under 18 are immoral. I believe that this is not the purpose of the court to do this, but the legislature.
I spent some time talking this subject over with a few people last night. I don't support the death penalty on any level, but there was something about this case that kept bugging me.
During that conversation I was able to finally voice it - and it was the same thing that bugged you. I doubt I could say it as well as you did, or add anything else....but I do agree with you.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
kallend 2,026
The problem you describe will exist as long as the death penalty exists. There is only one solution.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
cheaper is not reasonable...Its just cheaper.
He has provided nothing...This is an old debate and no side was able to prove a cost benefit.
No one has proven that it is cheaper to keep them alive.
Pnishment is NOT necessary? What do you want to do reward criminals?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites