Number 1000

[rockouthippie]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/02/boyd.execution.ap/index.html

RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- A convicted murderer was put to death Friday in the nation's 1,000th execution since capital punishment resumed in 1977.

Kenneth Lee Boyd, who was convicted of killing his estranged wife and father-in-law, received a lethal injection and was pronounced dead at 2:15 a.m.

[shakey_snake]

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, but is this really worth a smear campaign?
Let a man go in peace.

[xzxzzx]

Horrible. Simply horrible.

It's a bad way to go, too. Slowly slipping into unconciousness, knowing you'll never return... eww.

[rockouthippie]

One of the things that disturbs me is the sentences they give veterans. They are twice as likely to get death, and serve average twice the amount of time for the same crime as civilians.

It's pretty hard to get death in Oregon. Usually we reserve that for people like Jimmy Rode (Caesar Barone .... serial killer). I doubt Oregon would have executed him, but he is a veteran, and judges consider veterans to be a higher threat.

Another thing that bothers me is that it takes them 20 years to execute someone. If it takes that long..... why bother?.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

<--- 100% in favor of death penalty.

I want to see the guillotine make a comeback.

[zootm]

<--- 100% against the death penalty.

State-sanctioned murder never really sat right with me ;)

[LuigiHann]

Only a thousand in the whole country in almost 30 years? For some reason I thought it happened more often.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Originally posted by zootm
<--- 100% against the death penalty.

State-sanctioned murder never really sat right with me ;)

Neither does raping kids. If a crime is serious enough, death penatly should be used.

If a guy kills 15 people because he's fucking insane, there is 0 reason why he should have the right to be kept alive. Do the world a favor and be rid of the bastards.

[zootm]

Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
If a guy kills 15 people because he's fucking insane, there is 0 reason why he should have the right to be kept alive. Do the world a favor and be rid of the bastards.
He's human.

Besides, if he were insane, he wouldn't be killed.

[MidnightViper88]

Has anyone ever seen the movie "The Lottery"?

Let's institute that with inmates convicted of rape, murder, and the such, and let the public do the stoning...That would be fun...

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

I want to see the guillotine make a comeback.
:up:

It's quick. It's painless. It's messy, but it's also humane. And cost of operation is negligable to taxpayers. No electricity needed. No expensive injection hardware or chemicals. No expensive gas chambers. Just a simple wooden structure with a rope and blade. :)

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Originally posted by zootm
He's human.

Besides, if he were insane, he wouldn't be killed.

So were the 15 hypothetical people he killed. Keeping him alive gives his murderous life more meaning than the 15 he ended.


Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
:up:

It's quick. It's painless. It's messy, but it's also humane. And cost of operation is negligable to taxpayers. No electricity needed. No expensive injection hardware or chemicals. No expensive gas chambers. Just a simple wooden structure with a rope and blade. :)

Ever wonder why lethal injection needles are sterlized?

[shakey_snake]

Because it'd be cheaper than buying unsterlized needles.

[rockouthippie]

What do you do about this stuff?. I flip flop on it a lot. I think I have come to the conclusion that I am against capital punishment.

Some weird reasons:

First, someone has to do it. That's not so cool.

Second, it costs 10 million dollars, because of all the appeals.

Third- It takes too long. 17 years in this case. This keeps the case open for years too, with the press etc.

Some of our states, like Texas, are a little more bloodthirsty than I think the rest of us might like too.

Like I said, a domestic violence murder probably wouldn't get you death in Oregon. Ya gotta be Jim Rode.

Put em in a can, weld the lid on, but killing em' isn't really necessary.

I really don't care about the murderers. I'm more concerned about us. It's hard for us to do. Maybe we just shouldn't bother.

And we've been wrong a few times too. Kinda hard to undo that mistake.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Think about how much it costs to house convicted criminals for years at a time. That's a lot of taxpayers dollars being wasted on criminals that probably should have been executed (murderers, rapists, etc).

Ever wonder why lethal injection needles are sterlized?
Or why we drive on parkways and park on driveways?... Yeah. Sometimes I wonder, but not too hard. ;)

[zootm]

Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
So were the 15 hypothetical people he killed. Keeping him alive gives his murderous life more meaning than the 15 he ended.
I disagree. I think killing him gives validity to the act of murder.

This is one of those subjects where I know I'm right, and you know you're right, though. Arguing isn't going to solve anything. Every argument is a direct call to emotion.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Murder and execution are morally different things. Is it moral to kill 15 innocent people? Is it moral to kill one person that killed 15 innocent people in order to keep other people from possibly falling to the same fate?

[DrDel]

I totally agree with what you are saying!

I think that the death penalty is the way to go for all criminals

I also like the 3 strikes Youre out policy -- figures that it takes an American to bring baseball analogies into justice! lolers

but I do agree that the death penalty is the way to go!

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

I wouldn't go too far with that. I'm all for the death penalty, but only for convicted criminals that truly deserve it... like rapists, murderers, etc. Non-violent criminals don't really deserved death, imo. Would you really want to put a shoplifter to death? Nah. Make them do community service! :D

[xzxzzx]

Is it moral to kill even one person mistakenly in the name of "justice"?

I might actually be for the death penalty if our justice system were somehow capable of being 100% accurate. But it's not, no court can be.

It's not that I don't recognize that using the death penalty would be effective in preventing any further murders by a prisoner (of other prisoners, or if he escapes), and possibly would even reduce the overall death rate (by, perhaps, discouraging other would-be murderers).

But I don't view prison only as a punishment; it's more of a step to protect the citizens from a person. We use prison when we have said "this person can no longer be trusted enough to be free", while we use fines and community service and so on for lesser things, when we wish simply to punish.

Yes, we have innocents in prison, but that simply cannot be avoided, we must have prisons for the safety of our society, and while we try as hard as we can to make sure only those guilty of crimes get sent there, we cannot be 100% accurate, can never be, but that is an entirely necessary cost, one which cannot be avoided. Executing an innocent man is not.

Taking a convicted criminal's life &mdash; that displays to me only arrogance, a false pride in our courts, and it shows that we value the life of the innocent man so little that we would gladly give his life so that it might make a statement, or perhaps so that we would not have to spend so much on his prison cell.

[zootm]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Murder and execution are morally different things. Is it moral to kill 15 innocent people? Is it moral to kill one person that killed 15 innocent people in order to keep other people from possibly falling to the same fate?
Are they posing a threat to other people? No. You've caught them. They're in prison. Give them life without parole.

They still have the right to life. You still don't have the right to take their life from them.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

The people that those murderers killed also had the right to life. When a person becomes a murderer, they give up their right to life. While they're in prison, they're doing nothing but burdening the taxpayers.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
The people that those murderers killed also had the right to life. When a person becomes a murderer, they give up their right to life. While they're in prison, they're doing nothing but burdening the taxpayers. And the innocents who will inevitably die along with the guilty?

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

...are a fraction as many people as those who would die at the hands of such murderers.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Is it moral to kill even one person mistakenly in the name of "justice"?

I might actually be for the death penalty if our justice system were somehow capable of being 100% accurate. But it's not, no court can be. I don't even think that that is an issue.
No matter what crime someone commits, a person always desrves a second chance to better themselves.

[LuigiHann]

How likely is it that a murderer, after years of prison, goes out and kills more people?

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
...are a fraction as many people as those who would die at the hands of such murderers. ... who would otherwise get life in prison without the possability of parole?

Originally posted by shakey_snake
I don't even think that that is an issue.
No matter what crime someone commits, a person always desrves a second chance to better themselves. It's enough of an issue for me. A second chance is also a good idea, but I don't think we have the understanding of the human mind, in general, enough to allow for that for those who we would give the death penalty to.

Originally posted by LuigiHann
How likely is it that a murderer, after years of prison, goes out and kills more people? Unfortuantely, pretty likely. Likelier than a normal citizen, anyway.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
It's enough of an issue for me. A second chance is also a good idea, but I don't think we have the understanding of the human mind, in general, enough to allow for that for those who we would give the death penalty to.
Mind you, "a chance to better themselves" doesn't have to mean "reintroduction to society".

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

... who would otherwise get life in prison without the possability of parole?
...while sucking up taxpayer's dollars and eating up prison space that could be used to temporarily house non-violent criminals that could be released in a few years or so. If a murderer is put in prison with NO chance of ever being released, then what's the point? The point of prison is punishment for criminals that could possibly be released back into society. If you're only going to lock someone up until they die, why not just go ahead and get it over with, since obviously, they're not going to be "corrected," "rehabilitated," or otherwise changed for the better to be released back into society. The only thing you'd be accomplishing by keeping a murderer in prison for life is to use up working people's resources that could otherwise be used for better purposes.

[zootm]

Ah, so murder is preferable to spending money.

I get it now.

[shakey_snake]

The appeals process behind modern executions undoubtedly costs our country more than taking care of an inmate for a few more years.

[Phyltre]

Originally posted by zootm
Ah, so murder is preferable to spending money.

I get it now.

Well, really, from a nonreligious standpoint, what could you say is wrong with that?

[shakey_snake]

You're treating a person as a means rather than a person, a la Kant

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Mind you, "a chance to better themselves" doesn't have to mean "reintroduction to society". Ah. In that case, I do agree to a limited extent.

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
The only thing you'd be accomplishing by keeping a murderer in prison for life is to use up working people's resources that could otherwise be used for better purposes. Or possibly releasing him when it's proven that he was not the criminal...

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

... who would otherwise get life in prison without the possability of parole?
Or possibly releasing him when it's proven that he was not the criminal...
Now you're just contradicting yourself.

Ah, so murder is preferable to spending money.
No, execution is not murder. And spending money is not the same as wasting money.

The appeals process behind modern executions undoubtedly costs our country more than taking care of an inmate for a few more years.
A few more years? We're talking about housing inmates for the rest of their natural lives. Most of the time, that's quite a bit longer than a few years. And the appeals process is another proceedure that needs serious revamping.

You're treating a person as a means rather than a person...
So, you think murderers should get the red carpet treatment or something?

[zootm]

Originally posted by Phyltre
Well, really, from a nonreligious standpoint, what could you say is wrong with that?
Killing people in the name of the law then arresting people for killing people degrades the rule of law, for a start.

Really though, there's no argument here. The "efficiency" argument doesn't have a lot of validity because of the lengths of sentences and difficulties involved in carrying out the death penalty anyway.
Now you're just contradicting yourself.
No he's not. Parole isn't the same as new evidence proving someone innocent... :confused:
No, execution is not murder. And spending money is not the same as wasting money.
Spending money to keep someone potentially dangerous inside prison is not a waste. You're correct that execution is not technically murder though (murder is unlawful), but it is killing without necessity, which is good enough for me.
So, you think murderers should get the red carpet treatment or something?
Of course not. But killing them is a hilarious hyprocrisy.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
A few more years? We're talking about housing inmates for the rest of their natural lives. Most of the time, that's quite a bit longer than a few years.
During the 1988 slayings
Kenneth Boyd, 57, was executed early Friday for the murders of his estranged wife and her father.
World Health Report 2005 wrote
THe average life expectacy of a male in the US is 75 years.
So, we either pay for an average of 18 more years in prison (75-57), or we can pay for 17 years (2005-1988) of court costs, and 6-7 digit lawyers.
What do you think is going to be cheaper?
My bet is on prison.

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
And the appeals process is another proceedure that needs serious revamping.
Well, it isn't being changed and I doubt it will in the near future, so this isn't much of a point.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

An execution need not cost more than the price of a decent rifle, a one-time buy, and the 50 cents for a 30-30 cartridge.

If you're sentenced to death row, you spend no more than 5 years in prison. This gives people ample time to attempt to prove him innocent. If they can't do it within the 5 year "statue of limitation", then tough fucking titty.

[shakey_snake]

I guess that makes sense. DUKA DUKA MUHAMMMAD JIHAD!

:rolleyes:

[LuigiHann]

I say we blast them into space.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
An execution need not cost more than the price of a decent rifle, a one-time buy, and the 50 cents for a 30-30 cartridge.


Killing is really not in our nature. People have to be taught to kill. Even after you've been trained to kill as a soldier, you still know killing is wrong. Some soldiers even get rather casual about it, but killing screws you up.

This is why I think we make it so hard to execute people. Because it basically goes against our grain. 10 million dollars and 20 years later we manage to get people executed.

In the mean time, we labor over this debate and spend more time and effort than it's worth.

I had the acquaintance of our local serial killer Caesar Barone. I played pool with him a couple of times.

He's been in prison about 15 years now, and they'll probably get around to killing him in the next few years. If ever a guy needed a cap in the head it's Barone.

I am more annoyed that I have to read about his appeals and ever hear of him again. They should have found a deep, dark hole to toss him in permanently.

This would give the victims and their families quick closure, instead of dragging the matter out for 20 years.

In this case, we got to listen to the condemned give us his blessing.

I have a blessing for him. "Hope Satan kept hell hot for you you murdering bastard".

Do I care about the condemned?. Not a damn bit. Do I care about us?. Yep. We shouldn't need to dirty our hands.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Parole isn't the same as new evidence proving someone innocent...
Sorry, I misread that.

Spending money to keep someone potentially dangerous inside prison is not a waste.
An execution need not cost more than the price of a decent rifle, a one-time buy, and the 50 cents for a 30-30 cartridge.
A couple hundred bucks to buy a rifle versus tens of thousands of dollars per year to house someone in a jail. The latter sounds pretty wasteful to me. And I agree with...
If you're sentenced to death row, you spend no more than 5 years in prison. This gives people ample time to attempt to prove him innocent. If they can't do it within the 5 year "statue of limitation", then tough fucking titty.
If a someone is proven to be a murderer without a doubt, then they should be executed without delay. Fuck all this appeals shit and wasting money and time. Now, if there is reasonable doubt, and there's a possibility that said person might be proven innocent, give them five years to do it. Not...
So, we either pay for an average of 18 more years in prison (75-57), or we can pay for 17 years (2005-1988) of court costs, and 6-7 digit lawyers.
That's just too damn much. Five years should have been more than enough time. That's another reason why...
Well, it isn't being changed and I doubt it will in the near future, so this isn't much of a point.
...revamping the appeals process should be made into a point.

But killing them is a hilarious hyprocrisy.
Sorry, I'm a little slow tonight. Could you please expound on this a bit?

Killing is really not in our nature.
Our, as in citizens of this country? Or our, as in human beings as a species of animal? Just curious, that's all.

[shakey_snake]

I'm I the only one who's glad that it's hard for the gov't to kill someone?
I mean the Reign of Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_terror) must have been fun and everything:rolleyes:, but I don't think it's worth revisiting.

[eheiney]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Killing is really not in our nature.Our, as in citizens of this country? Or our, as in human beings as a species of animal? Just curious, that's all.
That's not curiosity, you're looking for a fight.

Either way, it's a no-win situation. You're preempting that killing is in the nature of American citizens, as well as all human beings, as a species of animal. I would like to say that killing is indeed not in our nature, but sadly it is, as both American citizens and human beings, as a species of animal. For this response, I will focus primarily on the latter.

The difference is whether or not we choose to release this instinct. We have evolved and learned to dampen, or lessen, the emotions that killing would require. It is always going to be present, but the vast majority don't see it as a temptation, or a desire.

This is not to say that murder is right. Killing is wrong, and it is always wrong. In agreement with shakey_snake, and Kant, we should always treat persons as ends in themselves, and never simply as means to an end. From the same writing we learn to apply the categorical imperative, which states that we should "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." If you cannot, it is unjust.

So I ask of you, is the death penalty just? No. It does not matter who it is or what was done, killing someone is always wrong. I don't care if we're even talking about Hitler, who wasn't killed but committed suicide (which Kant again sees is wrong), a killing is wrong.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

That's not curiosity, you're looking for a fight.
Don't try to tell me what my intentions are.

[shakey_snake]

Fight! Fight! Fight!

[eheiney]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Don't try to tell me what my intentions are.
Okay, I shouldn't have assumed that you were indeed looking for a fight. But I must ask, however, what your intentions were. If killing were in our nature as citizens of this country, what difference would it make if it were in our nature as human beings as a species of animal?

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

I simply wanted to know what rockouthippie's point of view on that is.

[mysterious_w]

No one's mentioned it's probably nicer to the criminal, an easy way out. I'd be a lot more depressed if I knew I'd be spending 50 years in a jail cell on a life sentence, not just 5. Plus I'd like to believe in rehabilitation.

[rockouthippie]

Well Sarge-

I don't view humans as being "natural born killers". Even wolves don't usually kill each other. We have to make speeches and beat drums to get us over our natural inhibition about that. Most of us anyway.

[zootm]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Don't try to tell me what my intentions are.
To be fair, they clearly weren't what you said they were ;)

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

I don't view humans as being "natural born killers". Even wolves don't usually kill each other. We have to make speeches and beat drums to get us over our natural inhibition about that. Most of us anyway.
Personally, I think that's because most humans have evolved beyond the point where there is no natural inhibition about killing another human. That just goes to show you that wolves can be more civilized that some "humans."

To be fair, they clearly weren't what you said they were
I thought "Just curious, that's all." was pretty clear. :P

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

I also believe that most violent criminals can not be rehabilitated. Prime example; child molesters. Once one, always one. They can NOT be rehabilitated, it is pointless to try. They’re also smart. They get in prison, grab a bible, act nice, and say they’ve “changed” and try to get out on good behavior. All people working for prisons should be atheist, as that would take care of the “oh, look at me, I’ve read the bible, so I’ve changed” bullshit.

Those are my views and opinions, it is futile to try to argue it with me, because, well, I know I’m right.


Originally posted by shakey_snake
I guess that makes sense. DUKA DUKA MUHAMMMAD JIHAD!

:rolleyes:

You mean "dirka dirka". And comparing me to a radical extremist (read: Muslim terrorist) is quite stupid, as those bastards need to die. I’m expressing my opinions on the PRISON system, a system for criminals who have so been punished by the US court of law. I believe that certain criminals should be executed, and religion should be kept out of prisons, because it is manipulative.

If you want to call me a “terrorist”, then fine.

DIRKA DIRKA! MOHAMMED! JIHAD!

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
You mean "dirka dirka".I had finger constipation, it happens.
Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
And comparing me to a radical extremist (read: Muslim terrorist) is quite stupid, as those bastards need to die.Funny, because they think the exact same thing about you. I guess my comparison holds up.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Yeah, but SSJ4 isn't blowing innocent people up with bombs strapped to his chest in the name of allah.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

eh, the filling's mutual. Funny how that works.

And doesn't your religion tell you not to judge people?

Funny how that works, ain't it. Welcome to my ignore list.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
And doesn't your religion tell you not to judge people?
It tells me to spread tolerance and love.
That's all I'm trying to do.

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Yeah, but SSJ4 isn't blowing innocent people up with bombs strapped to his chest in the name of allah.
So the difference is that he's not commited. Is that what you're trying to say?

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

The difference is, I don't give a rats ass what religion someone belongs to as long as they don't go shoving it down my throat. The difference is, I don't think that everyone that isn't me, or doesn't believe in what I do should die. The difference is, I’m not going to strap 50 pounds of C4 and ball-bearings to my waist and blow myself up for a non-existent god (no gods exist anyways). The difference is, I’m not hell-bent on world domination. The difference is, I’m not out terrorizing people by instilling the fear of doing a mundane thing such as going to a public event.

And by insinuating that I do, that tells me not only how your religion has warped your brain, but it also tells me your way of thinking, believing that because I’m not you, that I must be a terrorist. I’m either with you, or the terrorist, aren’t I? If you honestly believe in your religion, you should take a good look at yourself in the mirror, and question everything you’ve said to me today in this thread, because my “oh so little understanding” of Christianity, seems to me that everything you have said goes in a 180° view of Christianity. Your believe system tells you not to judge others, that the only person who has the right to is your god, and the only retort to that, that you have, is that your religion tells you to spread tolerance and love, ignoring the part of “not judging” someone, plus telling me that, essentially, I deserve to die because you've judged me as being akin to a Muslim terrorist.

I love your religion. It gives me people to laugh at.

And yes, I’m using your religion against you, because not only I can, but because I’m also right.

[shakey_snake]

Hey, hatred is murder, whether it ends in blowing yourself up and killing people or not.

To be fair, I never called you a terrorist, but brought up the whole team america reference to imply "slaughtering criminals with a 30-30 sure wouldn't sit wrongly with those guys" REad up on Maylasia and some of their capital punishment policies.

And yes, I’m using your religion against you, because not only I can, but because I’m also right.
Hey, it's not like this has never been done before, right?
This is something I'm comfortable with, you need not think you're being original here.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Except you assume I was having an original thought.

And yes, hatred is hatred. But there is sure as hell more than one way for it to be carried out, and my method is not terrorism. As I sated before, the views I posted were for the US prison system. People accused and found guilty of certain crimes deserve to die because of the crimes they committed.

You rape a little 10 year old girl; you deserve to die, plain and simple. There aren't many crimes more heinous than that. This applies to Catholic priests as well.

You kill someone, or multiple people, with the intent to kill (ie: not self defense), you deserve to die.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to watch Seven Days.

[Phyltre]

So then there's no real possible solution.

Many people think some criminals cannot be rehabilitated, so that there will always be a category of criminals that will never be eligible for parole. So we will always be stuck with paying for someone's existence. And there will always be people against capital punishment, so that we can't just kill them instead of letting them sit in jail for forty or more years.

I have a question to people against the death penalty (I am too, incidentally): if you are against killing someone, are you saying that living with a giant mob of hostile criminals for 40 or more years without a chance to get out is actually a better prospect?

[mysterious_w]

No, and that's part of the point, it's a greater punishment.

[zootm]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
I thought "Just curious, that's all." was pretty clear. :P
Passive aggression usually is :p

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by Phyltre
are you saying that living with a giant mob of hostile criminals for 40 or more years without a chance to get out is actually a better prospect?

That's what prisons are for.

[ASD5A]

years ago i've would sayd: "send every murdering bastard to hell as fast it could be done instead of wasting our money to let him sit in jail until his death"
but now i think: what if we execute some innocent ppl?
we should keep raper, kiddie fuckers and murderers so long lonely in prison until they die, no matter if they have changed

[rockouthippie]

And we absolutely HAVE executed innocent people.

An FBI report I read said that a third of prisoners are either not guilty or guilty of substancially lesser crimes than they were convicted for.

Since we are that lousy about meeting the goals of justice, should we be killing people based on a legal system we have proven is very flawed?.

And if we want to fight crime, why don't we fix THAT crime. It seems to me that imprisoning innocent people for long prison terms is a crime. It's a crime we are aware of, but it's not a priority... and I think it should be.

[Mattress]

The excuse of executing prisoners because they are getting a free ride on the public dollar is garbage. Tons of people get a free ride on the public dollar in the form of welfare.

I think instead of execution we should just put those worthy of death in complete isolation for the rest of their lives.

On the other hand it's okay to kill unborn humans in this and other civilized countries so why not kill those who got born and fucked it up?

I'm not trying to start an abortion debate but it's something to consider.

[LuigiHann]

I would just like to point out the clear parallels to Naziism.

[zootm]

Originally posted by LuigiHann
I would just like to point out the clear parallels to Naziism.
I'd like to point out the clear veracity of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law).

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Originally posted by zootm
I'd like to point out the clear veracity of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law).

Oh snap!

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Pwnt? Yes, pwnt.

Sorry everyone. Thread over. :P

[xzxzzx]

Damn it! Stupid Godwin's law wit-the *grumble*

Makemyownthreadgrumble...

[mysterious_w]

Shit, I've read this before, but I've not seen it actually happen before.

[Mattress]

the arguments were going nowhere anyway.

[MidnightViper88]

Can you say "Denied" (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/12/D8EETVQG0.html)?

Execution set for tonight... (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2005-12-12T212637Z_01_MCC908296_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-EXECUTION-TOOKIE.xml&rpc=22)

Barring last-minute court intervention, officials will administer a lethal injection at 12:01 a.m. PST on Tuesday (3:01 EST) in the death chamber at San Quentin State Prison.

[rockouthippie]

I guess we're all supposed to feel bad for him after watching the movie of the week.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Shouldn't that have been done 25 years ago?

[Phyltre]

Originally posted by Mattress
The excuse of executing prisoners because they are getting a free ride on the public dollar is garbage. Tons of people get a free ride on the public dollar in the form of welfare.

I think instead of execution we should just put those worthy of death in complete isolation for the rest of their lives.

On the other hand it's okay to kill unborn humans in this and other civilized countries so why not kill those who got born and fucked it up?

I'm not trying to start an abortion debate but it's something to consider.

The reason I'm not comfortable with putting someone into complete isolation for the rest of his/her life:

You say that we shouldn't execute because of inherent uncertainty. (Or at least you seem to be agreeing with that, if your reason is different then this won't be completely relevant.) But can you really argue that complete isolation or a life with violent (and literally hopeless) degenerates is any better than death?

If not, then you can't justify this complete isolation or lifelong imprisonment any more than you can justify death. The only difference would be that the isolation is reversible, whereas death is not--but after more than 10 years in that situation, the damage is largely already done.

(I am anti-execution, but I can't really justify a better alternative that I think genuninely IS better.)

About the abortion thing, I don't think it's okay in the first place so it really doesn't have meaning for me.

[Mattress]

exactly, isolation is reversible, death is not. whether or not that is worse is irrelevant really.
Anyway the argument that complete isolation is worse than death is fine with me, the vast majority of people on death row DO deserve to be there because they DID commit terrible crimes, so I won't feel bad punishing them arguably worse.

Are you arguing that in the case of an innocent on death row, that eternal isolation is worse for them than if we were to kill them?

[Phyltre]

Originally posted by Mattress
exactly, isolation is reversible, death is not. whether or not that is worse is irrelevant really.
Anyway the argument that complete isolation is worse than death is fine with me, the vast majority of people on death row DO deserve to be there because they DID commit terrible crimes, so I won't feel bad punishing them arguably worse.

Are you arguing that in the case of an innocent on death row, that eternal isolation is worse for them than if we were to kill them?

I don't think it's even an argument, it's a psychological reality in at least some of the cases. What purpose can you ascribe to a spartan existence lacking any freedoms or interactions with others? Heck, at least hermits had religious reasons.

What I'm saying is, death is only a more acceptable option if it causes less harm in a majority of cases. But I don't feel that I can definitively say that.

[Mattress]

remember this is supposed to be a punishment

[Phyltre]

No, it's not supposed to be punishment, literally, it's supposed to be either rehabilitation or making sure the person doesn't have the chance to do it again, respectively.

"Punishment" only has meaning in the construct of a universal moral system, which we don't have.

(Note that I'm not talking about something like petty theft here, only the more violent crimes.)

[Mattress]

so if there's no universal moral system then how is murder wrong? why would people need to be rehabilitated?

[Phyltre]

1) Because it hurts the freedoms of others. 2)Because doing it again would hurt the freedoms of others.

[Mattress]

yes but locking the murderers up hurts their freedom. Two wrongs... oops there's no such thing as wrong, i forgot. :p

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Mattress
yes but locking the murderers up hurts their freedom. Two wrongs... oops there's no such thing as wrong, i forgot. :p Locking up murderers is absolutely necessary.

But wait. I thought this thread was over.

[Phyltre]

There's an exception to any rule. But that Hitler thing is not the exception to this one.