Death Penalty

[MaskedDrifter]

I apologize man. I read it wrong. Sometimes I do that. I apologize then.

Yeah, then I guess we do agree. awesome!

[M_Ghey]

It happens. And yeah, I finally agree with someone on something.

[MaskedDrifter]

Excellent. Now the next thing is to try and persuade others to agree with us.

[Draffut]

lol, GB. A bunch of crumpet eating pansies.

And if you mean to tell me that if we made the penalty for shop lifting. "2 weeks of toucherous death, were your flesh is slowly peeled from your bones, and your fingers slowly cut off one at a time till you bleed to death" We would not see a drop in shoplifters? I beg to differ.

Just we have that silly like in the constitution for "Cruel and Unusual punishment"

[M_Ghey]

What are you talking about? We are not talking about cruel and unusual punishments here, but the death penalty, which is rarely cruel and isn't unusual, therefore your statement means nothing and will be cast aside. Everyone pretty much mentioned that the death penalty should only be used in the most dire circumstances, like murder, and even then, there should be exceptions, like that girl in England. Or are you saying she should have been killed? What is the point of your post, anyway? I don't see where exactly you are disagreeing, and you don't seem to be agreeing either.

[Sarteck]

Yeah the girl shouldn't have died. The problem with our government though is that they are really inconsistent about the death penalty. They'll give it to some murderers...but not to all...so it's hard to say what the government considers to 'deserve' the death penalty. I'm all for death penalty...but goverment needs to use it more consistently - more often - or it's not going to have the effect it should on the society.
Don't the different states have different ideas on what constitutes possible death penalty? Because of that, unless the federal government tried to interfere, the laws on that will never be universal, I think.

[Vlad]

I am all against death penalty. My country canceled death penalty about 10 years ago, after the innocent person was executed and after everybody agree that death penalty is too barbaric and primitive. Leave death penalty for uncivilized countries. It's so last century.

[Vampyrelord]

That only addresses my first paragraph...please address the others as well as present a new argument. :doindadom

Are you deliberately avoiding answering me? Let's do this one point at a time, please.

A higher percentage of the American population are murderers than the British population, despite America having the Death Penalty. Therefore, to say the death penalty reduces crime (as you claim) is INCORRECT. The facts are against you.

What do you say to that?

ps. I agree entirely Vlad.

[Sarteck]

THat's not really a persuasive form of arguing to use.

"The U.S. has the Death Penalty, and a larger murder rate than Britain. Therefore, the Death Penalty does not reduce crime."

That's like saying, "since she weighs as much as a duck, and since a duck floats on water, and since wood floats on water, then she must be made of wood. And since she is made of wood, she must be a witch."

[Vampyrelord]

THat's not really a persuasive form of arguing to use.

"The U.S. has the Death Penalty, and a larger murder rate than Britain. Therefore, the Death Penalty does not reduce crime."

That's like saying, "since she weighs as much as a duck, and since a duck floats on water, and since wood floats on water, then she must be made of wood. And since she is made of wood, she must be a witch."

As thrilled as I am to see you quoting Monty Python, it would appear that we are against each other again.

"The U.S. has the Death Penalty, and a larger murder rate than Britain. Therefore, the Death Penalty does not reduce crime."

No, that is not particularly persuasive, but it would be even worse to say that the death penalty does reduce crime, when faced by such facts!

[Nichigo]

Are you deliberately avoiding answering me? Let's do this one point at a time, please.

A higher percentage of the American population are murderers than the British population, despite America having the Death Penalty. Therefore, to say the death penalty reduces crime (as you claim) is INCORRECT. The facts are against you.

What do you say to that?

ps. I agree entirely Vlad.

No i'm not avoiding. I just want you to address my WHOLE argument...just like I always address your WHOLE arguments. And I already talked about Britain vs. US. I said that those statistics are based on alot of other things than just the death penalty. That means those statistics are unreliable. I'm invalidating your evidence...it's called a debate tactic (you'd do well to use some yourself instead of simply shouting and screaming). And I also said that crime HAS NOT decreased because it is not used ENOUGH.

Please start addressing all the information instead of just the information you WANT to address. We're going around in circles because you're not presenting any new arguments. Please debate the right way and without getting angry at everyone, or you'll find yourself with no one to debate with. I'm just about to give up on this thread since you're the only one arguing for your side and I can't get a good response from you. :rolleye09

[Sarteck]

As thrilled as I am to see you quoting Monty Python, it would appear that we are against each other again.

"The U.S. has the Death Penalty, and a larger murder rate than Britain. Therefore, the Death Penalty does not reduce crime."

No, that is not particularly persuasive, but it would be even worse to say that the death penalty does reduce crime, when faced by such facts!
I hate to use statistics for most arguements, because they can be used and skewed so many different ways, but that is just a personal preference. Heh.

Don't get me wrong, I do see your line of thought, there, but the lesser crime rate could be from any number of things, from better police, to better laws or living, to even (yes, possibly) not having the Death Penalty. But with such a wide range of variables, you can't [in all honesty] single out one difference in our law systems and say "yup, that's where the problem is."

You see what I mean, yeah?

[Vampyrelord]

No i'm not avoiding. I just want you to address my WHOLE argument...just like I always address your WHOLE arguments. And I already talked about Britain vs. US. I said that those statistics are based on alot of other things than just the death penalty. That means those statistics are unreliable. I'm invalidating your evidence...it's called a debate tactic (you'd do well to use some yourself instead of simply shouting and screaming). And I also said that crime HAS NOT decreased because it is not used ENOUGH.
Please start addressing all the information instead of just the information you WANT to address. We're going around in circles because you're not presenting any new arguments. Please debate the right way and without getting angry at everyone, or you'll find yourself with no one to debate with. I'm just about to give up on this thread since you're the only one arguing for your side and I can't get a good response from you. :rolleye09

Fair enough I guess. My whole argument? Okay!

I oppose the death penalty for many reasons:

a) It is irreversable (so what if you get the wrong guy? Don't deny it - it happens)
b) There are usually extenuating circumstances, a murderer is not pure evil, there is always a motive, as I have mentioned before (unless they are drunk, but this isn't the thread to discuss that). I have already mentioned the case of the girl who shot her violent boyfriend and was hanged for it.
c) It is uneccesary, a prison sentence would do just as well, if not better, since it allows for reform
d) Execution is not justice, it is revenge, which is a primal and barbaric desire.
e) The death penalty does not reduce crime. This is a FACT. You said that the death penalty is not used enough, but back in the middle ages, you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, and crime was much worse then!
f) It lowers the state to the level of the murderer ("you killed him so we'll kill you back"). As Mohandas Gandhi said: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind".

[Sarteck]

Fair enough I guess. My whole argument? Okay!

I oppose the death penalty for many reasons:

a) It is irreversable (so what if you get the wrong guy? Don't deny it - it happens)
b) There are usually extenuating circumstances, a murderer is not pure evil, there is always a motive, as I have mentioned before (unless they are drunk, but this isn't the thread to discuss that). I have already mentioned the case of the girl who shot her violent boyfriend and was hanged for it.
c) It is uneccesary, a prison sentence would do just as well, if not better, since it allows for reform
d) Execution is not justice, it is revenge, which is a primal and barbaric desire.
e) The death penalty does not reduce crime. This is a FACT. You said that the death penalty is not used enough, but back in the middle ages, you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, and crime was much worse then!
f) It lowers the state to the level of the murderer ("you killed him so we'll kill you back"). As Mohandas Gandhi said: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind".
a) While there might be a case in which that has recently happened, I cannot think of one--The Death Penalty is usually reserved for murderers who show little or no remorse for the killing.

b) This, I think, goes hand-in-hand with a). Yes, there are extenuating circumstances most of the time; that is why they are taken into consideration in a court of law.

c) Yes, and meanwhile, we (the friends and family of the murdered victims) pay for the room and board of one who may or may not reform, prisons get full, more prisons must be built (with taxpayer money), and there is always a chance that the prisoner may escape and commit the deeds again.

d) This is no arguement. This is your [unsupported] opinion.

e) I think we've shown that you cannot prove this so-called "fact."

f) Again, refer to d).

[Nichigo]

I'm out for the night fellas... ran a 5k today and i'm wiped. I'll get to your points in the morning Vamp...so don't go too far without me!

[UraharaTenchou]

Fair enough I guess. My whole argument? Okay!

I oppose the death penalty for many reasons:

a) It is irreversable (so what if you get the wrong guy? Don't deny it - it happens)
b) There are usually extenuating circumstances, a murderer is not pure evil, there is always a motive, as I have mentioned before (unless they are drunk, but this isn't the thread to discuss that). I have already mentioned the case of the girl who shot her violent boyfriend and was hanged for it.
c) It is uneccesary, a prison sentence would do just as well, if not better, since it allows for reform
d) Execution is not justice, it is revenge, which is a primal and barbaric desire.
e) The death penalty does not reduce crime. This is a FACT. You said that the death penalty is not used enough, but back in the middle ages, you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, and crime was much worse then!
f) It lowers the state to the level of the murderer ("you killed him so we'll kill you back"). As Mohandas Gandhi said: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind".
i like the quote by gandhi..
but death penalty is case by case.. it's stupid to say it reduce rate of crimes..

[Vampyrelord]

e) I think we've shown that you cannot prove this so-called "fact."

Fact: The US has the death penalty
Fact: No country in Europe has the death penalty
Fact: The US has a higher homicide rate than any country in Europe

Therefore, it logically follows that the death penalty does not reduce crime, as there is no evidence to suggest that it does so!

[Sarteck]

Fact: The US has the death penalty
Fact: No country in Europe has the death penalty
Fact: The US has a higher homicide rate than any country in Europe
Therefore, it logically follows that the death penalty does not reduce crime, as there is no evidence to suggest that it does so!
FACT: The U.S. has a higher immigration rate than any country in Europe. I guess it logically follows that having the Death Penalty encourages immigration?

THAT is where your arguement fails. Understand, yet?

[Vampyrelord]

FACT: The U.S. has a higher immigration rate than any country in Europe. I guess it logically follows that having the Death Penalty encourages immigration?
THAT is where your arguement fails. Understand, yet?

Yes, yes, I see what you mean (though immigration and the death penalty are obviously not connected, it's a good argument).

However, Britain had the Death Penalty up until the 1960's, when it was outlawed. Violent crime has decreased since then. This is clearly more evidence that the death penalty has no deterrent effect.

If it's stupid for me to say the death penalty has no deterrent effect despite all the evidence I have presented, it's even more stupid of you to say that there is a deterrent effect, when you have presented not a shred of evidence to support this theory!

[Jinx20]

The death penalty is a double edged sword, it swings both ways with positive and negative consequences, objectively speaking the death penalty is to inefficeint resulting in ocassional innocent ppl being executed, what do they say to that..? "oh shit my bad" just doesnt cut it. But subjectively speaking if a member of my family was assaulted or killed I would want blood vengance!

[Vampyrelord]

The death penalty is a double edged sword, it swings both ways with positive and negative consequences, objectively speaking the death penalty is to inefficeint resulting in ocassional innocent ppl being executed, what do they say to that..? "oh shit my bad" just doesnt cut it. But subjectively speaking if a member of my family was assaulted or killed I would want blood vengance!

I can understand that, but the desre for revenge is bad, very bad. It leads to all sorts of trouble, mainly vigilante activity.

[Jinx20]

VampyreLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinx20
The death penalty is a double edged sword, it swings both ways with positive and negative consequences, objectively speaking the death penalty is to inefficeint resulting in ocassional innocent ppl being executed, what do they say to that..? "oh shit my bad" just doesnt cut it. But subjectively speaking if a member of my family was assaulted or killed I would want blood vengance!

I can understand that, but the desre for revenge is bad, very bad. It leads to all sorts of trouble, mainly vigilante activity.

That is true but revenge, an eye for an eye, is a natural product of being human, a characteristic I believe will be with mankind for a long long time.

[Vampyrelord]

That is true but revenge, an eye for an eye, is a natural product of being human, a characteristic I believe will be with mankind for a long long time.

We should learn to forgive. That is one of the challenges of civilization, to overcome humanity's barbaric side. The desire for revenge is primal and savage, but we all feel it from time to time. We should all fight it, i old feuds are to be forgotten and life can move on.

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"

[Nichigo]

I can understand that, but the desre for revenge is bad, very bad.


We should learn to forgive. That is one of the challenges of civilization, to overcome humanity's barbaric side. The desire for revenge is primal and savage, but we all feel it from time to time. We should all fight it, i old feuds are to be forgotten and life can move on.

Stuff like this is preaching not debating. Need logical reasoning...not preaching on sentimentality/morality.

Now i'm going to address the post you made earlier:


a) It is irreversable (so what if you get the wrong guy? Don't deny it - it happens)
b) There are usually extenuating circumstances, a murderer is not pure evil, there is always a motive, as I have mentioned before (unless they are drunk, but this isn't the thread to discuss that). I have already mentioned the case of the girl who shot her violent boyfriend and was hanged for it.
c) It is uneccesary, a prison sentence would do just as well, if not better, since it allows for reform
d) Execution is not justice, it is revenge, which is a primal and barbaric desire.
e) The death penalty does not reduce crime. This is a FACT. You said that the death penalty is not used enough, but back in the middle ages, you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, and crime was much worse then!
f) It lowers the state to the level of the murderer ("you killed him so we'll kill you back"). As Mohandas Gandhi said: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind".

a) That stands for imprisonment as well. What happens if we imprison the wrong guy for 100 years and THEN we find out he's innocent? That's irreversible. Should we abolish the prison system then? Yes there are risks involved because no system is perfect. But that doesn't mean we should abolish it.

b) Murder is murder. You're right: there are different circumstances. However, unless the murder was because of self-defense or was a complete accident, then I don't see how it's justifiable. As stated a million times before. The person murdered didn't get a say in the matter, so why does the murderer (assuming they intended to kill and self-defense was not applicable) get so much flexibility in his punishment based on the circumstances?

c) A prison sentence for a murderer is faulty in 2 ways: 1) if the murderer gets out, you risk innocent people's lives. Death penalty eliminates this risk. 2) If all the murderer gets is prison, then future murderers are not threatened by a more extreme punishment since their predecessors only got imprisonment. 3) If a murderer goes to prison, the people in that state are essentially paying taxes to keep him alive.

d) Unsupported claim...you're preaching in this point.
e) Check this quote out that i found from a website:

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

like the guy said, even if it doesn't lower the crime rate, at least we're gotten rid of a few murderers...which in itself makes the society a bit safer. About your middle ages analogy: you cannot compare middle ages time to our time. Our societies, economies, and governments were totally different. Again, just like your statistics, you're applying a very very generalized statistic to relate to a single point --> the death penalty...when there are other factors that affect those statistics.

f) another unsupported opinion. you could just as well say that the state has been raised up to the title of "Protector of Justice" because it has vanquished evil in the form of eliminating a murderer. This is an opinion and not arguable.

[Vampyrelord]

Stuff like this is preaching not debating. Need logical reasoning...not preaching on sentimentality/morality.
Now i'm going to address the post you made earlier:
a) That stands for imprisonment as well. What happens if we imprison the wrong guy? Should we abolish the prison system? Yes there are risks involved because no system is perfect. But that doesn't mean we should abolish it.
b) Murder is murder. You're right: there are different circumstances. However, unless the murder was because of self-defense or was a complete accident, then I don't see how it's justifiable. As stated a million times before. The person murdered didn't get a say in the matter, so why does the murderer (assuming they intended to kill and self-defense was not applicable) get so much flexibility in his punishment based on the circumstances?
c) A prison sentence for a murderer is faulty in 2 ways: 1) if the murderer gets out, you risk innocent people's lives. Death penalty eliminates this risk. 2) If all the murderer gets is prison, then future murderers are not threatened by a more extreme punishment since their predecessors only got imprisonment. 3) If a murderer goes to prison, the people in that state are essentially paying taxes to keep him alive.
d) Unsupported claim...you're preaching in this point.
e) Check this quote out that i found from a website:
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
like the guy said, even if it doesn't lower the crime rate, at least we're gotten rid of a few murderers...which in itself makes the society a bit safer. About your middle ages analogy: you cannot compare middle ages time to our time. Our societies, economies, and governments were totally different. Again, just like your statistics, you're applying a very very generalized statistic to relate to a single point --> the death penalty...when there are other factors that affect those statistics.
f) another unsupported opinion. you could just as well say that the state has been raised up to the title of "Protector of Justice" because it has vanquished evil in the form of eliminating a murderer. This is an opinion and not arguable.

Glad to see you're back, Nichigosan, I've been waiting for you... (that's the annoying thing about debating across a time zone. Or 5.)

a) A prison sentence is better than the death penalty because if someone is imprisoned, you can't give them their life back but you can at least let them go (and ussually the government compensates). If you execute an innocent, then it is totally irreversible (so you have DESTROYED their life), and the state has, in effect, become a murderer!
b) What are you suggesting? The court can never fully know the circumstances, as I have mentioned before, so execution may be entirely inappropriate (personally I think it is never appropriate as it makes the state no better than the murderer).
c)
1) Death penalty has also eliminated innocents, doing the murderer's job for him!
2) How many times must I say this? There are very few murderers who truly enjoy killing and are a real and permenant threat! Many murder to defend themselves, or for revenge, and are not a threat to anyone else if they do escape! Think about itm if you'd just broken out of Alcatraz or whatever, would you be looking to murder more people? Of course not! You'd be lying low, trying to avoid attention!
3) You cannot put a price on human life
d) True
e) You got that quote from www.prodeathpenalty.com, I've been there before and debated there, but most of the guys there are too thick to put up a decent argument. My answer to that is: "There is no deterrent effect so actually you have killed a bunch of murderers (and invariably a few innocents as well) for no result whatsoever. Good job." There is no deterrent effect, as I have pointed out, since you don't commit a crime if you think you are going to be caught! Also, banning the death penalty in Britain (in the 1960's) has resulted in a decrease in violent crime, and no country in Europe has as high a homicide rate as America. And that's proportional, so don't give me any of that "population size" rubbish.
f) True

[Jinx20]

VampyreLord

We should learn to forgive. That is one of the challenges of civilization, to overcome humanity's barbaric side. The desire for revenge is primal and savage, but we all feel it from time to time. We should all fight it, i old feuds are to be forgotten and life can move on.


Originally Posted by Mohandas Gandhi
"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"

A blind world may be a good thing, then there will be no racisim, sexism, religous conflicts...etc Cuz no one will be able to tell the difference....

[Vampyrelord]

A blind world may be a good thing, then there will be no racisim, sexism, religous conflicts...etc Cuz no one will be able to tell the difference....

How very clever of you...

[Sarteck]

Yes, yes, I see what you mean (though immigration and the death penalty are obviously not connected, it's a good argument).

However, Britain had the Death Penalty up until the 1960's, when it was outlawed. Violent crime has decreased since then. This is clearly more evidence that the death penalty has no deterrent effect.

If it's stupid for me to say the death penalty has no deterrent effect despite all the evidence I have presented, it's even more stupid of you to say that there is a deterrent effect, when you have presented not a shred of evidence to support this theory!
Um, I was not making a claim as to how the Death Penalty reduces crime--only you were making claims in that direction, and I refuted them. I was not arguing in the opposite direction, but rather arguing that you arguement was poor. Heh.

So, I have no theory to provide evidence for. YOu, on the other hand, do, and it seems (even by your admission) that you've failed in that respect.

[Vampyrelord]

Um, I was not making a claim as to how the Death Penalty reduces crime--only you were making claims in that direction, and I refuted them. I was not arguing in the opposite direction, but rather arguing that you arguement was poor. Heh.
So, I have no theory to provide evidence for. YOu, on the other hand, do, and it seems (even by your admission) that you've failed in that respect.

Ah, I see. My mistake. Think of that post you quoted as being for the benefit of people like NIchigosan then, who claims that the death penalty does reduce crime...preposterous I'm sure you'll agree.

[Sunfire249]

Well, depending on how much they did I think they would either deserve one or the other. Taking a more sadistic side to this argument, if they had done something truly terrible and had to pay the consequences for it, why just let it end at death? Why not make them go through many mental tortures before letting them finally die out? But, if they did something like massacre many, than I would think that the death penalty isn't enough.

[Nichigo]

Ah, I see. My mistake. Think of that post you quoted as being for the benefit of people like NIchigosan then, who claims that the death penalty does reduce crime...preposterous I'm sure you'll agree.

I've never said that it reduced crime. Check all my posts. I've only said that your statistics don't have any relevance to death penalty actually having an effect on the decrease or increase of crime.

Well, depending on how much they did I think they would either deserve one or the other. Taking a more sadistic side to this argument, if they had done something truly terrible and had to pay the consequences for it, why just let it end at death? Why not make them go through many mental tortures before letting them finally die out? But, if they did something like massacre many, than I would think that the death penalty isn't enough.

Torture would be unconstitutional because of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause. Therefore, that argument can't be made.

[Sarteck]

Ah, I see. My mistake. Think of that post you quoted as being for the benefit of people like NIchigosan then, who claims that the death penalty does reduce crime...preposterous I'm sure you'll agree.
No, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was preposterous. I would instead say that his claim was unfounded and unable to be proven.

It may indeed reduce the crime rate. It may increase the crime rate, for all I know. What I do know is that we cannot prove it, and therefore should not use it as the focal point of any arguement.





Torture would be unconstitutional because of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause. Therefore, that argument can't be made.
To add onto that... It is my belief that the clause about "cruel and unusual punishment" could be used to argue that the Death Penalty laws are not solely for revenge, as was stated earlier by some. Because, as was mentioned by a person above (sorry, too lazy to look up your name, dude), some people wanting revenge for one who did some truly heinous crime[s] would want some very cruel and unusual punishments.

[Neve]

About this crime rate thing...it actually does increase it. A study was done in California: they executed 1 more person than was normal every month. The result - homicides inceased by 25%.

[Sunfire249]

True, but it would definitly be an alternative. In any case, I believe in the death penalty that would only apply to those who have commited the most heinous crimes, that would then dub them a "menous to society" (can't spell)

I mean, if the person went to jail because they mass murdered a bunch of people, was let out and then did it all over again I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want this person to escape somehow, would you?

[Sarteck]

About this crime rate thing...it actually does increase it. A study was done in California: they executed 1 more person than was normal every month. The result - homicides inceased by 25%.
Wow. What a study. O.O And this type of study was allowed?

YOu're going to have to back this one up with some hardcore linkage.

[Sunfire249]

About this crime rate thing...it actually does increase it. A study was done in California: they executed 1 more person than was normal every month. The result - homicides inceased by 25%.
I have to question this too. Why would the government all of a sudden just decide to execute one more person every month? Can you actually show some proof as to about this study of yours, because this sounds like a very cruel study to me.

[Sarteck]

I have to question this too. Why would the government all of a sudden just decide to execute one more person every month? Can you actually show some proof as to about this study of yours, because this sounds like a very cruel study to me.
Well, we could ask the Mods here to ban one user more than normal each month, and see if spamming rates increase 25%. XD

[Nichigo]

About this crime rate thing...it actually does increase it. A study was done in California: they executed 1 more person than was normal every month. The result - homicides inceased by 25%.

as stated...we need proof of this study. EVEN if it was conducted, my previous argument still applies. There are too many factors that affect crime to make a study that directly correlates the death penalty to crime rates. and you also have to ask the question - homicide increased 25% based on what? based on crime 10 years ago? or what? imo, statistics like this are not reliable enough to be applied. One statistic I WOULD be interested in having, if someone could find and link to it, is how many innocent people have been executed. People here keep saying that innocent people get executed all the time, but provide no statistics. :whatevah:

[Sarteck]

as stated...we need proof of this study. EVEN if it was conducted, my previous argument still applies. There are too many factors that affect crime to make a study that directly correlates the death penalty to crime rates. and you also have to ask the question - homicide increased 25% based on what? based on crime 10 years ago? or what? imo, statistics like this are not reliable enough to be applied. One statistic I WOULD be interested in having, if someone could find and link to it, is how many innocent people have been executed. People here keep saying that innocent people get executed all the time, but provide no statistics. :whatevah:
Well, I really do have to defend that, although I can't provide any proof myself (and am MUCH too lazy to do the searching). I mean, we've GOT to make mistakes, sometimes, yah? And besides, I really don't think that most of the time we would be admitting, "oh, whoopsie, we killed the wrong guy. My bad. ^^;;"

Ya see what I mean?

[Nichigo]

Well, I really do have to defend that, although I can't provide any proof myself (and am MUCH too lazy to do the searching). I mean, we've GOT to make mistakes, sometimes, yah? And besides, I really don't think that most of the time we would be admitting, "oh, whoopsie, we killed the wrong guy. My bad. ^^;;"
Ya see what I mean?

I'm not saying getting the wrong guy never happens. I'm just saying I want some numbers...because there's a difference between an error percentage of 50% and 0.1% and i would probably be swayed if the percentage was significant enough (although i doubt it will be). I'm pretty sure someone's done a study and come up with a rough percentage though. This is too hot a topic for those surveyors to have overlooked it.

[Sarteck]

I'm not saying getting the wrong guy never happens. I'm just saying I want some numbers...because there's a difference between an error percentage of 50% and 0.1% and i would probably be swayed if the percentage was significant enough (although i doubt it will be). I'm pretty sure someone's done a study and come up with a rough percentage though. This is too hot a topic for those surveyors to have overlooked it.
Well, yeah, but there's just got to be so much we won't ever know. Heh.

Now, I highly doubt that any one that has recently had the death penalty was innocent, seeing as how it's used only in the most extreme cases, with indisputable proof (i.e., genetics and/or confession, as well as lack of remorse, etc.). But in the past, it probably happened much more often. Heh.

Like witch burnings.

[Because she weighed as much as a duck.]

[Sarume Jyaruu]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail....
I believe the death penalty is right when you have a serial killer on hand.

[Vampyrelord]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail....
I believe the death penalty is right when you have a serial killer on hand.

A serial killer is someone to be pitied. A serial killer is insane, and cannot be held to account for his/her actions...

By the was, itsovernow, I agree with you, but I think it was a bit unwise to make a claim like that without any external evidence to back it up....

Oh and Nichigosan...you now a saying that you never said the death penalty has a deterrent effect, which is one of the main arguments for pro-death penalty people...so what's left? Revenge? is that the only reason? Revenge isn't a good enough reason to kill somebody!

[Sarteck]

A serial killer is someone to be pitied. A serial killer is insane, and cannot be held to account for his/her actions...Um... Yeah. Right. "Oh, you poor thing, killing all those people. Here, come over for dinner tonight and we'll talk about it."

Bullshit.

Oh and Nichigosan...you now a saying that you never said the death penalty has a deterrent effect, which is one of the main arguments for pro-death penalty people...so what's left? Revenge? is that the only reason? Revenge isn't a good enough reason to kill somebody!Um, try "well, if we kill you, you won't be doing this again." Try for the peace of mind of people that are afraid they might be next victims. No, "revenge" is not the only reason. Jeebus, can't you remember an arguement from less than two days ago?

[GenocideHero]

A serial killer is someone to be pitied. A serial killer is insane, and cannot be held to account for his/her actions...

By the was, itsovernow, I agree with you, but I think it was a bit unwise to make a claim like that without any external evidence to back it up....

Oh and Nichigosan...you now a saying that you never said the death penalty has a deterrent effect, which is one of the main arguments for pro-death penalty people...so what's left? Revenge? is that the only reason? Revenge isn't a good enough reason to kill somebody!
I agree with you see as to how people shouldn't die for certain actions just suffer in their cells in jail.

[Sarteck]

I agree with you see as to how people shouldn't die for certain actions just suffer in their cells in jail.
Sorry, but... "huh?" I don't understand your sentance, there. Could you clarify?

[GenocideHero]

Sorry, but... "huh?" I don't understand your sentance, there. Could you clarify?
Why kill the person for their actions? It's like getting away with out suffering for what they have done.

[Sarteck]

Why kill the person for their actions? It's like getting away with out suffering for what they have done.
So, you are basically saying that jail time would make them suffer more than death?

[GenocideHero]

Yes because who knows what happens after death.

Well killing them slowly would inflict the suffering they deserve.

[Sarteck]

So, in essence, you are in favour of maximum punishment. You think that maximum punishment would not be achieved by mere death, however.

[GenocideHero]

Yes exactly, I feel as if pain andsuffering will bring the vengence needed.

[Sarteck]

But it's not only about vengance. It's about justice, and about the prevention of having a crime re-occur. If the person is still alive, there is always a chance they could escape.

[GenocideHero]

True but I see it as Pain kills the idea of doing it again because if they are caught once again then the either suffer more if its mino or die if its major.

[Vampyrelord]

But it's not only about vengance. It's about justice, and about the prevention of having a crime re-occur. If the person is still alive, there is always a chance they could escape.

I agree with you the part about justice, but "justice" is a very vague term and is really just a matter of opinion...

[cheesydud]

the death penalty seems kind of harsh
unless the accused just keeps on escaping from prison/jail and wrecking havoc all over the place.

[Fect]

The real question here is "What is justice?" Now, I ask you:

What does justice mean? Is it an equal harm to the other person? Or is it allowing them to find their own justice for crimes?

[Ios]

equal harm is not possible.
since the victim and the offender would have to have about the same lifes witch should be ruined the same way. for example, someone kills a boy and rapes and then kills two girls. How can you ever repay him that? And, I think it is not a good solution.
Btw, what are you guys all talking about escaping? I think the chance someone escapes is VERY small.

I already had this debate once and the main conclusion we got was this:
Instead of putting someone on deathrow, give him lifelong prisonship BUT that prisonship should be REALLY LIFELONG. (here in holland, lifelong means 20 years O_o)

[Vampyrelord]

I'm not really into this "make them suffer" philosophy, I just think that the state should make sure that the criminal can no longer cause harm, and discourage others from doing the same (and no, the death penalty is not a deterrent, we've been through this before, check previous postings) rather than playing god by trying to punish them...

[akin_t]

About this crime rate thing...it actually does increase it. A study was done in California: they executed 1 more person than was normal every month. The result - homicides inceased by 25%.

Almost everyone has questioned that claim ... I'll just assume it's true, however that doesn't conclude anything, other factors have to be considered ... the increase in homicide rates can not neccessarily be attributed to the increased number of executions.

Furthermore, the government's decisions about these things are hardly known to criminals ... I mean, what makes you think they were aware of the monthly number of executions?

I'm not pushing for the death penalty, I just believe that there is no correlation in that statistic.

[Vampyrelord]

Almost everyone has questioned that claim ... I'll just assume it's true, however that doesn't conclude anything, other factors have to be considered ... the increase in homicide rates can not neccessarily be attributed to the increased number of executions.
Furthermore, the government's decisions about these things are hardly known to criminals ... I mean, what makes you think they were aware of the monthly number of executions?
I'm not pushing for the death penalty, I just believe that there is no correlation in that statistic.

I think that the purpose of that comment was simply to prove how ridiculous it was of some people to claim that the death penalty has a deterrent effect...

[Neve]

I'll admit that I got the figures wrong - I believe it was once every 2 months and 5-10%. However, the effect is still the same. Don't just sit here and question it either. If you're too lazy to do a google search to even find out if its true or not, don't just sit there and say "How can that possibly be true", statistics should be asssumed to be true unless they can be proven false. Seeing as none of you can be bothered to come up with statistics to the contrary, it is to be assumed that my statistics are correct, and that the death penalty is not a deterrant to criminals.
If you are really too lazy to do a google search, here's my source.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:kkpa11UfRZcJ:www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html+death+penalty+does+not+deter+crime+study+california&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=5

Please don't just sit there and say "I would really love it if someone provided these statistics...provide them yourself! You only weaken your argument because it seems like you're not able to find any.

Surely it shouldn't matter how many innocent people have been killed, but merely the fact that innocent people have been killed. Isn't the fact that the lives of the innocent have been forefit enough to take away the death penalty? How would you like it if a policeman turned up at your door one day and told you you were guilty of murder for which you would eventually be executed, even though you knew you had never done anything to anybody? (Don't just reply to this by saying "how would you like it if a murderer turned up at your door etc" because we already proved that it doesn't decrease homicides...didn't we =)

[akin_t]

I think that the purpose of that comment was simply to prove how ridiculous it was of some people to claim that the death penalty has a deterrent effect...

Oh ... well that clears things up. I thought he was claiming that the death penalty increased the homicide rate. In any case, I should have known itsovernow was smarter than that.

Anyway to add to what has been said, alot of you complain ...

"but ... but ... they live off my hard earned tax dollars if we just put them in prison"

Don't kid yourself, do you know how long it takes for an execution to take place after sentencing? Well it's anywhere from 15 - 20 years.

At that point, it wouldn't matter anymore. Furthermore, your taxes would be taken from you regardless ... only difference is a fraction of it would be spent on taking care of criminals who, like you, deserve to eat and live regardless of their crimes.

If they're locked up, they're not a menace to society anymore are they?

[Vampyrelord]

I'll admit that I got the figures wrong - I believe it was once every 2 months and 5-10%. However, the effect is still the same. Don't just sit here and question it either. If you're too lazy to do a google search to even find out if its true or not, don't just sit there and say "How can that possibly be true", statistics should be asssumed to be true unless they can be proven false. Seeing as none of you can be bothered to come up with statistics to the contrary, it is to be assumed that my statistics are correct, and that the death penalty is not a deterrant to criminals.
If you are really too lazy to do a google search, here's my source.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:kkpa11UfRZcJ:www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html+death+penalty+does+not+deter+crime+study+california&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=5

Please don't just sit there and say "I would really love it if someone provided these statistics...provide them yourself! You only weaken your argument because it seems like you're not able to find any.

Surely it shouldn't matter how many innocent people have been killed, but merely the fact that innocent people have been killed. Isn't the fact that the lives of the innocent have been forefit enough to take away the death penalty? How would you like it if a policeman turned up at your door one day and told you you were guilty of murder for which you would eventually be executed, even though you knew you had never done anything to anybody? (Don't just reply to this by saying "how would you like it if a murderer turned up at your door etc" because we already proved that it doesn't decrease homicides...didn't we =)

Yeah, that makes sense to me. I think I mentioned before that because the death penalty poses a threat to innocents, it cannot be used to defend them. It's like nuclear weapons. We're better off without them (ooh, there's a good idea for a new thread).

Oh, and by the way, don't you think the guy in your sig looks a bit like you?

[Neve]

I agree this is off topic indeed ... in any case, the death penalty not increasing crime and death penalty not causing crime are two very different things ... all this while, you have been saying that the study increased crime.
I was just pointing out what the study shows and what I believe. I'm not a psychologist - I don't know the psychological effects of the death penalty on unconvicted criminals and forgive me for assuming that you aren't either. Vlad also came up with evidence to support me (check the 'alcohol ban' thread). On the other hand, those who are for the death penalty have come up with no evidence. If I can't convince you, so be it, but something you have to admit is that it definitely does not decrease crime, whether you admit that it increases crime or not.

[akin_t]

I was just pointing out what the study shows and what I believe. I'm not a psychologist - I don't know the psychological effects of the death penalty on unconvicted criminals and forgive me for assuming that you aren't either. Vlad also came up with evidence to support me (check the 'alcohol ban' thread). On the other hand, those who are for the death penalty have come up with no evidence. If I can't convince you, so be it, but something you have to admit is that it definitely does not decrease crime, whether you admit that it increases crime or not.

I share your stand on the death penalty, but Vlad's post had some evidence to his study ...

I can give you one example of death penalty increasing murder rate.
In my country we had cases of rape, government decided to charge death penalty for rape. So death rate of the victims of rape have doubled in one year. Criminals did not want to live witnesses a live, because they was afraid of being executed if they get arrested. So we have never used death penalty ever sines.
THAT IS FACT. THAT WAS ACTUAL TRUTH I DID NOT MADE IT UP.

In this scenario, criminals had a strong motive to kill ... they didn't want to be sentenced to death. They were simply silencing the only witness to their crime.

It's somewhat different, in that study, it says homicides went up, yet it doesn't give one possible reason why. If there are no reasons given, one can conclude that it was dumb luck, or we can attribute the cause to another reason the researchers overlooked.

In any case, I just want to point out that I believe the death penalty serves no reasonable purpose besides scaring criminals. It does not reduce crime as pointed out by many now; however, I believe it does not increase crime either.

[Vampyrelord]

As I said. The death penalty is all about revenge. How savage. Especially if an innocent is killed.

[Vlad]

Well, the death penalty not increase number of crimes, but as I pointed out it increases savorless of many crimes. For my opinion homicide is a lot worse that just rape.

[akin_t]

Well, the death penalty not increase number of crimes, but as I pointed out it increases savorless of many crimes. For my opinion homicide is a lot worse that just rape.

Exactly, many people have been arguing that with me saying that virginity and honor are more important than life ... I call nonsense.

In fact, I'm going to open a thread about it now.

[Vlad]

Exactly, many people have been arguing that with me saying that virginity and honor are more important than life ... I call nonsense.
In fact, I'm going to open a thread about it now.
Well actually I think honor is very important in my family in my country. But I not think honor = virginity.

[Neve]

People can say that virginity and honour is more important than life, but I think if they were faced with the blind terror that comes from fear of loosing your life, they would change their opinions on that - I doubt anyone on this forum would choose virginity over life when faced with the choice.

[Vampyrelord]

People can say that virginity and honour is more important than life, but I think if they were faced with the blind terror that comes from fear of loosing your life, they would change their opinions on that - I doubt anyone on this forum would choose virginity over life when faced with the choice.

Not necessarily...victims of rape have been known to commit suicide...

[akin_t]

Not necessarily...victims of rape have been known to commit suicide...

When faced with a gun however, they choose to live and let the ordeal take place instead of dying with that honor and dignity they place above life.

[Vampyrelord]

When faced with a gun however, they choose to live and let the ordeal take place instead of dying with that honor and dignity they place above life.

Yeah, there's some truth in that...

[Machiavelli]

Death penalty should be STRICTLY imposed.

[Neve]

^ Why do you believe that? This is a debate - just making a statement one way or the other doesn't have any effect on the debate unless you back it up.

[Antosha]

The Death Penalty has been ruled out in most developed country, this is a very good question because in Russia the question of bringing back the dealth penalty is being debated. If you are religious, a death penalty would be the right thing, but having the death penalty does not let individuals to develop and become something more...eh crap its a bit late here cant tink of anything atm T_T

[Vampyrelord]

The Death Penalty has been ruled out in most developed country, this is a very good question because in Russia the question of bringing back the dealth penalty is being debated. If you are religious, a death penalty would be the right thing, but having the death penalty does not let individuals to develop and become something more...eh crap its a bit late here cant tink of anything atm T_T

DO NOT MAKE SWEEPING GENERALISATIONS. MANY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, MYSELF INCLUDED, HAVE OPPOSED THE DEATH PENALTY FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.

Death penalty should be STRICTLY imposed.

Why?! It does not reduce crime, and innocents are often executed by mistake. The death penalty is utterly barbaric. What's the point in it? "we get our own back on the criminal" Ohh good one. Great way to make a civilized nation, that. You cannot build civilization on vengance and hate.

[krumpage]

i think there should be death penalties even though they cost i *$&# load to carry out some kid in my school did a report on it

[Vampyrelord]

i think there should be death penalties even though they cost i *$&# load to carry out some kid in my school did a report on it

Are you saying you argument is based on what "some kid" in your school wrote? The death penalty is barbaric, crude and uncivilized, and solves nothing.

[maximoose666]

i think there should be death penalties even though they cost i *$&# load to carry out some kid in my school did a report on it
I wouldn't worry; I believe this person has been spamming and swearing all over the forum ignore him.

The death penalty is barbaric, crude and uncivilized, and solves nothing.

Although I'm actually against the death penalty, I have to oppose you on this. The death penalty does eliminate the chance that a murderer/paedophile will re-offend. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't better ways of preventing this, and I'm not saying that every or even most murderers will re-offend if released. But don't you think that by avoiding giving them death, you are putting innocent lives atr risk? Even if imprisoned, a criminal may escape. If, by avoiding killing a paedophile, he is able to escape, and rapes and murders a child, then are you not responsible? Surely his life is worth less than that of the defenceless child who you are protecting from him with the death penalty.

[Sarteck]

Surely his life is worth less than that of the defenceless child who you are protecting from him with the death penalty.
Gah... Though I am for the death penalty, I have to oppose you on this...

Who are we to decide who's life is worth more than who's? That is why the Death Penalty exists, because we place the values of some lives above the values of other lives. That's it, right there, it it's very core.

Then again, that is why all punishments exist--because we place the liberties of some and place them above the liberties of others. In this case, that liberty is the freedom to live.

We can argue that the life of the child is worth more, but the only thing we have to back that up is our own opinions. We don't know this. The child him/herself could grow up to be another Adolf Hitler. The rapist/murderer could come up with a cure for cancer while imprisoned.



I know, kind of silly for me to use this arguement and still be for the Death Penalty, yeah? Well... I am. And it's because I am opinionated enough to place the value of one's life above another, I guess. Kind of makes me think, though...

[Vampyrelord]

Gah... Though I am for the death penalty, I have to oppose you on this...
Who are we to decide who's life is worth more than who's? That is why the Death Penalty exists, because we place the values of some lives above the values of other lives. That's it, right there, it it's very core.
Then again, that is why all punishments exist--because we place the liberties of some and place them above the liberties of others. In this case, that liberty is the freedom to live.
We can argue that the life of the child is worth more, but the only thing we have to back that up is our own opinions. We don't know this. The child him/herself could grow up to be another Adolf Hitler. The rapist/murderer could come up with a cure for cancer while imprisoned.
I know, kind of silly for me to use this arguement and still be for the Death Penalty, yeah? Well... I am. And it's because I am opinionated enough to place the value of one's life above another, I guess. Kind of makes me think, though...

Tell me, why do you support the death penaty? I'd have thought you were too intelligent to support it...

[akin_t]

Tell me, why do you support the death penaty? I'd have thought you were too intelligent to support it...

Now now, Sarteck is simply taking a stand ... if no one was for the penalty then we won't have a debate.

[Sarteck]

Tell me, why do you support the death penaty? I'd have thought you were too intelligent to support it...
Now now, Sarteck is simply taking a stand ... if no one was for the penalty then we won't have a debate.
No, no... I actually -am- for the Death Penalty. I know that causing death, no matter the cause, is wrong, even if you think it's for justice. However, if we truly think that no one deserved death, no matter the cause, then because of that belief we must be the cause of death.

You see, in a perfect world, nobody would want to cause death. In a perfect world, death would come only naturally. Even then, though, there would be times when we might be forced to decide one life over another, because of accidents.

But we don't live in a perfect world, and some people do want to cause death. Perhaps it's because of something they believe so strongly in, or perhaps they are just forced to make a descision between one life or another. Sometimes, because of the imprefection in this world, we must make descisions about other lives, whether we allow one to live knowing that the one will cause deaths if we do so, or taking that one life and hopefully saving others.

You see, we are forced to take lives so that we may save lives. Let's say that we could have saved many lives by taking one life--why would we not take that one life?

It just gets all confusing as to which lifes are the right to spare and which are the right to save. That's where our morals and beliefs come into play.

[M_Ghey]

Well, I believe that the death penalty should continue existing. I mean, it is not rational to give a thief and a murderer the same sentence. Even a similar sentence is unfit. It's simple. Murder is the gravest of crimes and death is the gravest of punishments. The worst crime deserves the worst punishment.

[Vampyrelord]

Well, I believe that the death penalty should continue existing. I mean, it is not rational to give a thief and a murderer the same sentence. Even a similar sentence is unfit. It's simple. Murder is the gravest of crimes and death is the gravest of punishments. The worst crime deserves the worst punishment.

I don't know how it works in America, but here a murderer would get 20-35 years in jail and a thief would be unlikey to get more than 15...unless he stole a jumbo-jet or something.

No, no... I actually -am- for the Death Penalty. I know that causing death, no matter the cause, is wrong, even if you think it's for justice. However, if we truly think that no one deserved death, no matter the cause, then because of that belief we must be the cause of death.

You see, in a perfect world, nobody would want to cause death. In a perfect world, death would come only naturally. Even then, though, there would be times when we might be forced to decide one life over another, because of accidents.

But we don't live in a perfect world, and some people do want to cause death. Perhaps it's because of something they believe so strongly in, or perhaps they are just forced to make a descision between one life or another. Sometimes, because of the imprefection in this world, we must make descisions about other lives, whether we allow one to live knowing that the one will cause deaths if we do so, or taking that one life and hopefully saving others.

You see, we are forced to take lives so that we may save lives. Let's say that we could have saved many lives by taking one life--why would we not take that one life?

It just gets all confusing as to which lifes are the right to spare and which are the right to save. That's where our morals and beliefs come into play.

So you support the death penalty because you believe that it saves lives? So far no one has presented any evidence to suggest that the death penalty has any kind of deterrent effect. So the only way it saves lives is by killing a potential future murderer.

Well, first I'd like to say that imprisonment does the job just as well (when was the last time you heard of a break out?) and even if a ciminal did escape, he'd be lying low rather than killing people.

And also, I'd like to point out that every now and then an innocent man is convicted. Then the state has killed an innocent man. Then, the state has, in effect become a murderer.

And I'd finally like to say that not all murderers are dangerous people (just think back to my example about the young woman who shot her boyfriend).

[Schoulayer]

I used to believe in the death penalty, not anymore. My problem with it is a great deal of people are sent to prison and later found to be innocent. If the mere possibility of that exists I believe the death penalty should be abolished.

When somebody proves they need to be isolated from society, imprisonment serves that purpose. They will live in a tiny cell until they die.

[Sarteck]

I used to believe in the death penalty, not anymore. My problem with it is a great deal of people are sent to prison and later found to be innocent. If the mere possibility of that exists I believe the death penalty should be abolished.

When somebody proves they need to be isolated from society, imprisonment serves that purpose. They will live in a tiny cell until they die.
The "great deal of people" you speak about are actually quite minimal, and so far in this debate, no facts have been presented about this happening in the last century. If you could provide some facts about cases in which innocents were sentanced to death and executed, I'd be more open to that part of the arguement. Until then, however, I'd count it as null.

Also, if someone had killed my girlfriend, or my family, or did some other heinous acts to those that were close to me, I would not want my tax dollars going towards feeding, clothing, and sheltering them. If banishement was a possibility, I would choose that over the Death Penalty--however, that [realistically, anyway] is not possible.

[Endess Wings]

I don`t know yet!
but it look bad!

[Vampyrelord]

The "great deal of people" you speak about are actually quite minimal, and so far in this debate, no facts have been presented about this happening in the last century.

I shall have to research this at some point but I am certain that the wrong people have been killed as recently as this decade (something about "The Birmingham Six").

And as I have said. if the government kills just one innocent, then it has effectively become a murderer. It's much safer to imprison them, because at least you can try to rebuild their life.

[Reefern86]

I shall have to research this at some point but I am certain that the wrong people have been killed as recently as this decade (something about "The Birmingham Six").

And as I have said. if the government kills just one innocent, then it has effectively become a murderer. It's much safer to imprison them, because at least you can try to rebuild their life.

Actually due to the advances in DNA technology it has become increasingly harder for us to put the wrong person to death. Im not saying it doesn't happen, but it is very FEW and far between.

As for the death penalty itself...I am completly behind it. I just had to write a report on this for my college paper and we had to debate the topic. From what I have found, through my recenct research. It is by far more benificial to man kind to have the death penalty. It serves as an active deterent and in many cases could even be considered more humane then life imprisonment. Both to the victims and to the criminal.

If ud like I can go into much more detail I just wanted to hit a few of the high points.

[Sarteck]

Well, when you have had the chance to research and bring some material on the "wrong" people being executed, then we'll argue that point. Until then, the burden of proof is upon you to show that such a thing happens. ^_^

[Vampyrelord]

Well, when you have had the chance to research and bring some material on the "wrong" people being executed, then we'll argue that point. Until then, the burden of proof is upon you to show that such a thing happens. ^_^

Bah! You're right, which annoys me. I'll look into it. However, perhaps you can give me an example of when a murderer broke out of jail and killed more people, since this is what your argument is based on...

Actually due to the advances in DNA technology it has become increasingly harder for us to put the wrong person to death. Im not saying it doesn't happen, but it is very FEW and far between.

As for the death penalty itself...I am completly behind it. I just had to write a report on this for my college paper and we had to debate the topic. From what I have found, through my recenct research. It is by far more benificial to man kind to have the death penalty. It serves as an active deterent and in many cases could even be considered more humane then life imprisonment. Both to the victims and to the criminal.

If ud like I can go into much more detail I just wanted to hit a few of the high points.

You have found that "it is far more beneficial for makind to have the death penalty", eh? Well, O wise one, tell me what would happen if you were found guilty of a murder you didn't commit and were executed? You'd never be able to put your wonderful wisdom to good use, now would you?

And you'd like to go into more detail eh? So far, I have seen no statistics to suggest that the death penalty has a deterrent effect, and the only argument used by Sarteck is that it stops the criminal from offending again, just in case he escapes...now gettin the wrong person seems a lot more likely than that does...

A CRIMINAL SPENDS MANY YEARS ON DEATH ROW. THIS GIVES HIM TIME TO "ESCAPE AND KILL AGAIN"...BEING ON DEATH ROW ALSO GIVES AN INCENTIVE TO ESCAPE WHICH IMPRISONMENT DOES NOT OFFER.

[Sarteck]

Bah! You're right, which annoys me. I'll look into it. However, perhaps you can give me an example of when a murderer broke out of jail and killed more people, since this is what your argument is based on...
I can't. Unless you count old B-Rated horror flicks. Heh. It may have happened, it might not have, it might happen in the future--who knows? But should I keep a poisonous snake in a cage inside my house, in hopes that it won't get out and bite my family?

[Reefern86]

Bah! You're right, which annoys me. I'll look into it. However, perhaps you can give me an example of when a murderer broke out of jail and killed more people, since this is what your argument is based on...
You have found that "it is far more beneficial for makind to have the death penalty", eh? Well, O wise one, tell me what would happen if you were found guilty of a murder you didn't commit and were executed? You'd never be able to put your wonderful wisdom to good use, now would you?
And you'd like to go into more detail eh? So far, I have seen no statistics to suggest that the death penalty has a deterrent effect, and the only argument used by Sarteck is that it stops the criminal from offending again, just in case he escapes...now gettin the wrong person seems a lot more likely than that does...
A CRIMINAL SPENDS MANY YEARS ON DEATH ROW. THIS GIVES HIM TIME TO "ESCAPE AND KILL AGAIN"...BEING ON DEATH ROW ALSO GIVES AN INCENTIVE TO ESCAPE WHICH IMPRISONMENT DOES NOT OFFER.

Sigh i knew this kind of shit would happen. Statistics can easily be scewed by those writing them for one. At this point in time it is physically impossible to gather any data that means anything cause there is no where left in the world for a study. To elaborate, we can no longer study how the death penalty would effect those in a certain area where it was enforced for all crimes because such a place will never exist. The same hold true for the opposite senerio in which no crimes warrent the death penalty.

As for me being exacuted for something I didn't commit... I wouldn't give a shit. Actually I would be happy if the justice system went through all the shit they had to and found me guilty because it would actually bring more peace then harm. For example, if i was sentenced to death for the killing of 15 ppl, and i went through the system as previously stated, then ppl would be happy that a man that killed 15 ppl was being killed. It wouldn't matter if it was actually me or not because the populace got the responce they wanted and the courts did there job so they get to c justice. This would bring closer to a lot of ppls minds and in the long run improve the moral of the populace. And if another person was killed while i was on death row. ( which i would be for a long ass freakn time). It would prove my innocence and they could seek there justice else where.

[Neve]

Alright, here are the facts you want:

Gerald Smith (Executed 1/18/90)

Gerald Smith received the death sentence for the 1980 murder of Karen Roberts in St. Louis. In a sworn affidavit in 1988, Timothy Smith, brother of Gerald, identified another brother, Eugene, as the person who actually killed Ms. Roberts. Timothy’s story was supported independently by other individuals and was more in line with the physical evidence of the case. Over the years Gerald, who had a history of psychological disorders and suicide attempts, told two different stories of the murder. One was consistent with Timothy’s while the other was used by Gerald when he apparently wanted to end his life.

Maurice O. Byrd (Executed 8/23/91)

Maurice Byrd was executed for the murders of James Wood, Carolyn Turner, Edna Ince, and Judy Cazaco in Pope’s Cafeteria in Des Peres in 1980. Robbery had also been part of the crime. Four years after Byrd’s trial, an unbiased eyewitness came forward identifying two other African-American men as individuals she encountered coming out of the mall near the cafeteria early on the morning of the murders. (The witness said she waited to come forward for fear of retaliation by the real killers.) She recalled one of the men was carrying a large bag. The witness had recognized Byrd as someone she had previously seen working in the mall and knew he was not one of the two men she saw at the mall that morning.

The prosecution had no eyewitnesses, but relied on pretrial statements (later recanted) made by Byrd’s wife that he told her he had killed three people in Missouri. The prosecution otherwise relied on the self-interested testimony of jail cellmates who were in a position to gain advantage in their own cases by testifying against Byrd. This case also had serious issues of racial bias in that Byrd was an African-American and the victims in the case were Caucasians. He was tried and convicted by an all Caucasian jury after the state prosecution used its peremptory strikes to exclude the African-American veniremen.

Walter J. Blair (Executed 7/21/93)

Walter Blair, an African-American was convicted of the contract murder of Kathy Jo Allen, a Caucasian, in 1979. The case against Blair relied primarily upon the testimony of Ernest Jones, a police informant. Jones testified that Blair had told him, before and after the murder, of the plot to kill Ms. Allen. However, Jones’ credibility was suspect because he received immunity for any part he played in the murder. Ironically, police officers arrested Jones the day after the shooting when they learned he and his brother had pawned a ring stolen from the victim’s boyfriend during the kidnapping. Officers also realized Jones had stolen the murder weapon in a burglary of his next-door neighbor’s home. Furthermore, the victim’s boyfriend identified Jones in a police lineup as the person who had kidnapped Ms. Allen at gunpoint before she was murdered. Two other witnesses observed a man matching Jones’s description leaving the scene of the murder just after they heard shots fired.

Source: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:kJEqzWNo4dAJ:home.kc.rr.com/wmcadp/miscarriages_of_justice.htm+man+killed+through+miscarriage+of+justice+capital+punishment&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=14

[Reefern86]

There is the point though. I only c 3 out of how many exacutions in that time period??

[Neve]

Are you saying the lives of these people are worth nothing???

We already proved that capital punishment doesn't decrease the crime rate, and if they can't even do the revenge bit right without killing innocent people, I don't see any reason why we should keep it.

[Reefern86]

Are you saying the lives of these people are worth nothing???

We already proved that capital punishment doesn't decrease the crime rate, and if they can't even do the revenge bit right without killing innocent people, I don't see any reason why we should keep it.

read my reply to vamp a bit earlier and ull c what my oppion is. And still its only 3 ppl out of thousands. shit happens. should i feel bad for every human life that is lost for shitty reasons?

[Neve]

And as I have said. if the government kills just one innocent, then it has effectively become a murderer. It's much safer to imprison them, because at least you can try to rebuild their life.
He's right. It's one thing for a life to be lost in a car accident or something. It's completely another for the government to murder an innocent citizen.

[Reefern86]

He's right. It's one thing for a life to be lost in a car accident or something. It's completely another for the government to murder an innocent citizen.

WTF do u think wars r. It nothing BUT governments killing innocents. Should be bann government now?

[Shinomori]

....3 people.

Consider the following.

In 2002, there were 3,447 unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging nine people per day. This figure does not include drownings in boating-related incidents (CDC 2004).

OH EM GEE, 9 PEOPLE A DAY! That's 3 times as many as you have in.....3 years.

Let's BAN WATER!

Crap happens. Why don't we try saving THESE people before we go balls-out to save 3 lives?

[Neve]

Why not save 3 lives? What's the death penalty for if it doesn't reduce crime? What is it other than petty revenge? You all just sit there being sarcastic and giving unrealistic examples like banning water - you haven't actually been able to produce a single fact that shows why the death penalty helps society. If it doesn't help, then why kill these people? Why not just let them live? That's like going out and murdering three people, at random, and then saying 'oh well, there are three times more drownings than that every day...'. Those people's lives are still valuable! They are still people! And what's more, they have been murdered by the government under a stupid law which doesn't even reduce crime and, in most cases, increases it!

[Shinomori]

.....and now, you've forced me to do this.

People on death row have exhausted all appeals. They have no further legal recourse. Basically, if they were in prison, they'd be in for life.

Sit back and watch the show.

2000-2200 volts at 7-12 amperes for 60-90 seconds.

Electric chair. Cost? Negligible. You can get that power for a few dollars.

Sodium Pentothal, Pavrulon, and Potassium Chloride. Lethal Injection.

Pavulon10ml vial 25/carton $400
Sodium Pentathol1 gram vial 25/carton $200
Potassium Chloride 60ml vial 25/carton $30

Total? Well, 400/25 + 200/25 + 30/25 = $25.20 a patient.

Gas chamber. Yes, 5 states still do it. Cyanide gas + acid.

Cost? $1.80. That's it.

Hanging? Just the cost of a rope.

Firing squad? You can get guns and ammo for a cheap price, seeing as how state militia already have them.

Let's see now.

ONE SINGLE YEAR IN PRISON COSTS TAXPAYERS $126,000.

Average time spent in prison is about......15 years, some are more and some are less.

That's 126,000 * 15. That's $1,890,000. ALMOST TWO MILLION DOLLARS.

People are executed when they have no legal recourse left to take. Why not save......$1,889,795?

No one likes this argument, but it's got to be done. Death Penalty exists because their alternative is life in prison. Which costs money.

[Neve]

How about the USA don't go to war with undeserving countries like Iraq? Then they wouldn't have to kill people in their own country to keep their economy above board. btw the death penalty costs $16,000 a piece...not exactly negligible, although not huge compared to your figure. The USA still has plenty of money, though - easily enough to keep people in prison - a life is not worth any amount of money provided the money is there.

EDIT: ^Reefern - that's spam - suggest you delete it.

[Reefern86]

How about the USA don't go to war with undeserving countries like Iraq? Then they wouldn't have to kill people in their own country to keep their economy above board.

EDIT: ^Reefern - that's spam - suggest you delete it.

Now ur getting completly off topic. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with capital punishment. The only reason I say anything is because I'd go off the handle on that topic ;)

[Shinomori]

btw the death penalty costs $16,000 a piece...not exactly negligible, although not huge compared to your figure.
EDIT: ^Reefern - that's spam - suggest you delete it.

Uh.....did you just decide to skim over my entire post in order to say something disproved entirely previously?

[Sarteck]

itsovernow, I just looked up and reviewed each of those cases, and for each one, it was the State's fault for not conducting further investigation. With Gerald Smith, Missouri basically granted his wish for suicide so they would not have to go through a bunch of bull and decide who was indeed the murderer, Smith or his brother. With Byrd, it was the State's fault for not conducting further investigation when the witness came forward four years after the trial and sentancing of Byrd. It is also my opinion that both Blair and Jones should have been executed, because they were both responsible for the kidnapping and murder. For that trial, it was just that those two each said that the other one was responsible and that they were just "there."

In each of these cases, it was that the State was possibly at fault for not following precendence and for not wanting to bother expending resources to investigate further when new claims were made (minus the Blair case, in which both men were essentially guilty, but one recieved a reduced sentancing for testimony).

So, yes, the State may have ****ed up. Hell, what can I say, it is Missouri, after all. Byrd's case is the only of those three I am particularly concerned about, but then I wonder why a witness decided to come forward after four years of not saying anything, and right at a time when the case was becoming popular again because of the impending execution--something, I am sure, that crossed the minds of those in the appeals courts, as well. Blair was obviously guilty, as was Jones, but Jones is the one that decided to give testimony. Smith... Meh. I'm of the opinion that Missouri really screwed up with Smith, just wanting to get rid of a nutjob by granting his desire for suicide.



So, let's say that each of these cases were re-investigated, yet again. A minimum of thousands of dollars in manpower and other resources would have been spend by the government (if not millions), not to mention the added cost of the taxpayers dollars feeding, clothing, and sheltering these men. At least one of them was undeniably NOT innocent, another was a whackjob that was looking for a way to kill himself anyway. As I said, I think Byrd should have possibly been re-investigated.














EDIT:

Also, about the costs for execution, here's one excerpt:

ncarceration
The annual incarceration costs for Tennessee death row inmates are the same as
other maximum-security inmates (such as individuals incarcerated for rape or non-
capital first-degree murder). According to department staff, the Department of
Correction calculates an operation cost per day for each facility, which applies to all
inmates regardless of sentence type. As of April 2004, Tennessee has 97 people on death
row. According to the department, death row inmates spend an average of 13.22 years on
death row. (See pages 36-38.)
The execution of an inmate saves the state approximately $773,736 for the future
imprisonment of the inmate when compared to an inmate sentenced to life without
parole. Executions save $680,549 when compared to inmates sentenced to life with
the possibility of parole. (See pages 36-37.)
Administering the Death Penalty
Robert Glen Coe’s execution by lethal injection cost Riverbend Maximum Security
Institution $11,668. The total cost of execution includes additional security, medical
supplies, medical personnel, and the necessary chemicals for the procedure. The
institution also places lighting outside the gates, portable restrooms, and additional
security to prevent disputes among demonstrators. (See page 38.)

[Neve]

@ Shinamori - ?? I made a valid point that an economically strong country such as the USA could easily afford a few million here and there in order to keep people alive. Obviously you just skim read my post, and picked out the bit that you could argue against, before making an unfounded accusation at me.

@ Sartek - Again, thousands and millions of dollars is very little to a government as powerful as that of the USA - and I still don't think you can compare money to life in that horrible way.

[Vampyrelord]

Human life is irreplaceable. You can always earn more money, but you can never return someone to life.

Oh and Reefern, as for your arument "givernments always kill innocent people" let me correct you. The AMERICAN government does because it has the death penalty and it is constantly fighting wars with weaker nations. WHY the British government supported the war in Iraq is beyond me but now everyone really hates Blair. The purpose of the government is to protect people. America is the most warmongering nation on the face of the planet, it's worse than the Soviet Union was, and more aggressive than Saddam. War should always be a last resort.

[Sarteck]

Again, thousands and millions of dollars is very little to a government as powerful as that of the USA - and I still don't think you can compare money to life in that horrible way.
Again, you can't really say that and be serious. The government is in debt. It has been, for quite a long time. That money that we spend on keeping these nutjobs and not-so-innocents alive could go toward better school facilities for the kids I plan on having some day, space exploration, scientific achievement and technological advancement, so on and so forth. Hell, when I was a kid, I sure as hell hated it when my teacher said "and ignore what the book says about such-and-such, because it's ten years old." Could have definately used that government money for new books, if, as you say, "thousands and millions of dollars is very little to a government as powerful as that of the USA."

[Vampyrelord]

Again, you can't really say that and be serious. The government is in debt. It has been, for quite a long time. That money that we spend on keeping these nutjobs and not-so-innocents alive could go toward better school facilities for the kids I plan on having some day, space exploration, scientific achievement and technological advancement, so on and so forth. Hell, when I was a kid, I sure as hell hated it when my teacher said "and ignore what the book says about such-and-such, because it's ten years old." Could have definately used that government money for new books, if, as you say, "thousands and millions of dollars is very little to a government as powerful as that of the USA."

True. But you probably wouldn't be in debt if Bush stopped cutting taxes and wasting money on wars. The defecit only occured because of Bush's thunderous stupidity.

[Neve]

To be honest, it sounds a bit selfish for you to say "oh well, lets kill people because it means that I can get more up to date school books"...won't you consider the lives that will be destroyed for you to have your up to date school books? Won't you consider that in order to get yourself "up to date school books" the government is murdering citizens who would otherwise have had chances of redemption, or even citizens that are innocent?

[mooks]

The very concept to taking a persons life legally is in itself disturbing. The US needs to catch up with current social standings. They are as far back as Saudi or Yemen. Although the US claim to have the most 'humane' method- in Saudi they are executed by a gold-jewel encrusted sword handed from the King. Ultimately, your killing someone.

Wrongful killings are likely to be occuring more than once per year in the U.S. Because DNA evidence which has exhonorated more than a hundred on U.S. death rows since 1994 is only available in a fraction of all capital cases, the actual number of wrongful killings may be substantially greater. And with the Judicial history of racism in the US court, it is dangerous practive that should be stopped.

[Vampyrelord]

The very concept to taking a persons life legally is in itself disturbing. The US needs to catch up with current social standings. They are as far back as Saudi or Yemen. Although the US claim to have the most 'humane' method- in Saudi they are executed by a gold-jewel encrusted sword handed from the King. Ultimately, your killing someone.
Wrongful killings are likely to be occuring more than once per year in the U.S. Because DNA evidence which has exhonorated more than a hundred on U.S. death rows since 1994 is only available in a fraction of all capital cases, the actual number of wrongful killings may be substantially greater. And with the Judicial history of racism in the US court, it is dangerous practive that should be stopped.

How is blasting someone with thousands of volts humane?

[mooks]

It's not. Neither is putting them to sleep then killing them.
There's no right or 'just' way to kill a person.

[Neve]

@ vampyrelord - don't question him - he's supporting us! I think he was using the term 'humane' ironically, which is why he put it in quotes.

EDIT: Oh, sorry vampyrelord...I misundersood...sorry about that =P

[Vampyrelord]

I wasn't questioning him, I was questioning the fact that Americans claim to use humane methods...credit me with more intelligence, please.

[beware_the_strawberry18]

First of all vampyre, thank you for stating the obvious.
Now, about being HUMANE. I believe it's also lethal injection now--permanent slumber. How much more HUMANE can you get?! Would you suppose you'd go to one of the many families who have witnessed, suffered the destruction of a loved one by the hands of the filth that inhabit those prisons?? And yes, destruction is the best word. Would you go and tell them that the government is being too HUMANE to the criminals took the lives you exclaim are so PRECIOUS!? When the governement recieves countless letters of complaint and indignation from the families suffereing those tragedies, saying they had better ideas? That they wanted to "see the mother ****er burn" as one put it? Let me tell you a little story, Vampyre. I'm full of them. I lost my cousin when I was 11. She was 9. The bastard who stole both her innocence and her life is awaiting the death penalty. She was tortured for 3 hours before she actually died. He gouged out her lovely eyes because she wouldn't look at him as he rutted atop her like a mangy dog, slashed her mouth because she wouldn't moan or kiss his lips. Is that HUMANE, vampyre?? Then he dumped her body in his trash receptacle. HUMANE, you say? That the authorities got to him before my family did was HUMANE. To this day, he lives; they haven't yet carried out his sentence. I think it very HUMANE that he has 3 meals a day and a place to sleep. You can say that by meeting out the death penalty, we are no better, that we are playing God like those criminals did. You can think it if you wish. We are HUMAN after all. And we are so imperfect, are we not? That is why God exists.
Oh, and you also have this tendency in nearly every debate to rag on America. Well, this is known as the BEST country in thew orld; that is why so many flock here for a better life. And I'm not being biased; I love Europe, and wish to go there. I suggest you drop the superiority complex, else that may become your next debate.

[Shinomori]

@ Shinamori - ?? I made a valid point that an economically strong country such as the USA could easily afford a few million here and there in order to keep people alive. Obviously you just skim read my post, and picked out the bit that you could argue against, before making an unfounded accusation at me.


Hello?

LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE = DEATH.

You're in there until you die. It's the death penalty. Why not just kill them?

[Neve]

@ shinamori - There is chance that they may be redeemed, in which case there was no reason to kill them. They may also be innocent.

@ BTS18 - I'm not quite sure what to say. I really am sorry for your cousin...although I still don't think the murderer should be killed for it...it would be a bit unfair of me to argue with you about something as real life as that...

[beware_the_strawberry18]

@ BTS18 - I'm not quite sure what to say. I really am sorry for your cousin...although I still don't think the murderer should be killed for it...it would be a bit unfair of me to argue with you about something as real life as that...[/QUOTE]

Oh, it's no biggie. You are entirely entitled to your views and opinions. It's cool. Just throwing in my food for thought. feel free, and you show 'em! :D

[Sarteck]

itsovernow, yes. I do think that my education is worth far more that those lives. My education, and the education of countless others, as well.

As Shinamori said, "LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE == DEATH." It's just that the state is letting the death occur naturally, and extending the execution until that time. In the meantime, the millions of dollars that I and every other taxpaying citizen goes towards keeping these people alive, the majority of which ARE lowlifes and scum. These millions of dollars could have gone toward improving education, or even programs like welfare (since many of these types of crimes are committed by those with poor living standards), or advancing medical technology that can actually SAVE hundreds of MORE lives than those few on death row you are shedding so many tears over.

Let me see... The very few that may or may not be innocent vs. the better education, better living conditions, and better life-saving technology and research... I think I'd choose the latter, thanks.

[Vampyrelord]

First of all vampyre, thank you for stating the obvious.
Now, about being HUMANE. I believe it's also lethal injection now--permanent slumber. How much more HUMANE can you get?! Would you suppose you'd go to one of the many families who have witnessed, suffered the destruction of a loved one by the hands of the filth that inhabit those prisons?? And yes, destruction is the best word. Would you go and tell them that the government is being too HUMANE to the criminals took the lives you exclaim are so PRECIOUS!? When the governement recieves countless letters of complaint and indignation from the families suffereing those tragedies, saying they had better ideas? That they wanted to "see the mother ****er burn" as one put it? Let me tell you a little story, Vampyre. I'm full of them. I lost my cousin when I was 11. She was 9. The bastard who stole both her innocence and her life is awaiting the death penalty. She was tortured for 3 hours before she actually died. He gouged out her lovely eyes because she wouldn't look at him as he rutted atop her like a mangy dog, slashed her mouth because she wouldn't moan or kiss his lips. Is that HUMANE, vampyre?? Then he dumped her body in his trash receptacle. HUMANE, you say? That the authorities got to him before my family did was HUMANE. To this day, he lives; they haven't yet carried out his sentence. I think it very HUMANE that he has 3 meals a day and a place to sleep. You can say that by meeting out the death penalty, we are no better, that we are playing God like those criminals did. You can think it if you wish. We are HUMAN after all. And we are so imperfect, are we not? That is why God exists.
Oh, and you also have this tendency in nearly every debate to rag on America. Well, this is known as the BEST country in thew orld; that is why so many flock here for a better life. And I'm not being biased; I love Europe, and wish to go there. I suggest you drop the superiority complex, else that may become your next debate.

That's horrid...I agree, if this is indeed the man responsible, he is a foul, foul man, and you have a right to hate him. However, what would you want done to him? Do you want to make him suffer? What will suffice? How much pain would you want to inflict in revenge? When would you be satisfied that justice has been done? And you tell me, what if the man caught turned out to be innocent? And even if he was the right man, how would brutalising him make anything any better? If God exists, surely only he may make decisions about life and death, what gives you the authority to do so for him? You are a Christian, yes? So how can you preach hate? As Jesus hung dying on the cross, tortured and brutalised he said "Forgive them father, they know not waht they do" Not: "Make them suffer, father". I don't want to sound like I'm defending this worm, I just want you to know that I don't think the death penalty should exist merely so you can have your own personal revenge.

Finally, despite my exceedingly low opinion of America, for a variety of reasons, I am in fact an American citizen myself. And "people flock to America for a better life" what, despite the ignorance, the fanatacism, the high crime rates, the fact that the President's rise to power was corrupt, the fact that America is so self righteous it must prove it's superiority by attacking countries to weak to defend themselves...t's America that needs to drop the superiority complex, not me. Why do you think that it is so hated, hmm? Why do you think terrorists are willing to die to destroy America, hmm? Don't get me wrong, Europe has it's problems too, I'm just defending my choice to "rag America"...

PS. Sarteck, America should get money for eductaion by raising taxes and cutting military spending...

[Sarteck]

PS. Sarteck, America should get money for eductaion by raising taxes and cutting military spending...
Heh. Either you are not yet old enough to a taxpayer, you are insane, or you are a total idiot. And the issue here has nothing to do with your whining about Bush and the military budget, so quit trying to bring those into the arguement.

[Vampyrelord]

Heh. Either you are not yet old enough to a taxpayer, you are insane, or you are a total idiot. And the issue here has nothing to do with your whining about Bush and the military budget, so quit trying to bring those into the arguement.

Bush is a worm. He's cut taxes by billions of dollars, which benefits his rich pals more than anyone else.

[Reefern86]

Bush is a worm. He's cut taxes by billions of dollars, which benefits his rich pals more than anyone else.

ohh for gods sake get off the mans back that's not what we r here to debate.

[Vampyrelord]

ohh for gods sake get off the mans back that's not what we r here to debate.

Get off his back? If anyone deserves the death penalty, it's him. But simeons aside, I am still waiting for a reply to my arguments other than "Bleach isn't real"...

[Sarteck]

Bush is a worm. He's cut taxes by billions of dollars, which benefits his rich pals more than anyone else.
I'm not denying that (or agreeing). But that has nothing to do with this debate.

[Vampyrelord]

I'm not denying that (or agreeing). But that has nothing to do with this debate.

Fine. But I tell you, that's why schools are underfunded.Well, not when you were a kid, but we have people like Raegan to thank for that, who was almost as bad...Besides, a guy resides on death row for about 15 years, so you pay loads for him anyway.

[Sarteck]

Fine. But I tell you, that's why schools are underfunded.Well, not when you were a kid, but we have people like Raegan to thank for that, who was almost as bad...Besides, a guy resides on death row for about 15 years, so you pay loads for him anyway.
You tell me? How old do you think I am? How long do you think it's been since I've been in a public school? The last time I had a school-funded textbook was when Bush's daddy FIRST came to office! It's been a problem for more years than that, as well!

Don't try to pin every single problem on GWB. Sure, he's a sleazy idiot. That doesn't mean that everything is his fault.

Also, I've read (and will later provide sources) that the average stay is closer to 11 years. Is that a shitload of money? Yep. Is it a shitload less than 40 years or more? You tell me.

[Vampyrelord]

Fine. But I tell you, that's why schools are underfunded.Well, not when you were a kid, but we have people like Raegan to thank for that, who was almost as bad...Besides, a guy resides on death row for about 15 years, so you pay loads for him anyway.

Since I have no idea how old you are, I cleverly decided to blame Republicans in general (hence "like"), which includes Bush senior (who at least had some brains).

Also, I've read (and will later provide sources) that the average stay is closer to 11 years. Is that a shitload of money? Yep. Is it a shitload less than 40 years or more? You tell me.

Yes, but it's worth it if it saves just one innocent from death. Killing people like that just to save money is despicable, since a few innocents invariably get caught in the middle.

[Sarteck]

Yes, but it's worth it if it saves just one innocent from death. Killing people like that just to save money is despicable, since a few innocents invariably get caught in the middle.
A very, very few, yes. And that is where the hard descisions come in. Save money that you can use to advance medical technology to save many hundreds of thousands of lives with by sacrificing those few, or [effectively] sacrifice those who might be saved from cancer, AIDS, and other diseases that medical technology cannot cure at this moment.

The medical research budget is but one of the examples. Education and welfare budgets would possible eliminate the number of those few even further, as well.

[Vampyrelord]

Don't kid yourself, the government wastes that money on wars. Yes, pragmatically speaking that's a good point, but it's the concept that's worrying...the fact that we would coldly kill some in order to save others. A case of the lesser evil I suppose. It's hard luck on the innocents caught in the middle. You wouldn't be saying that if that dastardly despicable Vampiric fellow framed you for a murder and you were executed to save them the cost of feeding you.

[Sarteck]

Don't kid yourself, the government wastes that money on wars. Yes, pragmatically speaking that's a good point, but it's the concept that's worrying...the fact that we would coldly kill some in order to save others. A case of the lesser evil I suppose. It's hard luck on the innocents caught in the middle. You wouldn't be saying that if that dastardly despicable Vampiric fellow framed you for a murder and you were executed to save them the cost of feeding you.
The government may or may not waste it on wars, depending upon who it is that is in office. That's why it's essential that we vote.

I know that the concept is worrying. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I hate that concept, but it is the essential concept most civilizations are built upon, and it's something that I just can't argue, no matter how much I dislike it.

And, if that dreadful VampyreLord dude framed me, I'd hire Matlock, who would uncover the truth right at the court trial, and get him arressted! Muahahahaha! But, no, I do see where you are coming from, and, yes, I'd probably change my tune, then. But, thankfully, I'm not in that situation.

[Vampyrelord]

Someone has already pointed out just how few people are put on death row, so the amount of money saved by locking them up for 35 more years would be negligible (relatively speaking) and would not make any difference.

[konakona]

Im for the death penalty

Only thing wrong with it, as people have said, if you were to accuse someone for somthing they didnt do, and give em the death penalty...

"Oops..."

[Faith.]

I am against the death penalty because I believe that murder for murder is wrong its would affect a person to know how much grief they caused than to kill them and they have no remorse.I also believe that Tookie should not have been put to death because he changed for the better in jail which leads into my other thesis about the justice system still being biased in america today..and I believe to the fullest that many african amereicans are put to death without a second opinion because they are black and yes.Im african american and proud of it.. .. and thats how I feel about the death penalty

[Vampyrelord]

I am against the death penalty because I believe that murder for murder is wrong its would affect a person to know how much grief they caused than to kill them and they have no remorse.I also believe that Tookie should not have been put to death because he changed for the better in jail which leads into my other thesis about the justice system still being biased in america today..and I believe to the fullest that many african amereicans are put to death without a second opinion because they are black and yes.Im african american and proud of it.. .. and thats how I feel about the death penalty

Yay! I agree entirely! Welcome to Club Bleach by the way.

[Faith.]

thank you.

[mooks]

Hell yeah, Faith. I fell what you're saying.

real glad to have you at Club Bleach.

Just wanna say, c