Opponents of the death penalty argue that an innocent suspect could be executed; therefore, the death penalty should be abolished. Proponents counter and point out the appeals process and the reduction of the murder rate when states adopt the death penalty.
Does the death penalty really reduce the murder rate? If you do some Googling you can find studies that claim it does and studies that claim it doesn't.
I hate it when that happens! Somebody is lying! So how can we clear up the issue?
One way is to put yourself in the murderer's shoes. Pretend you are a serial murderer. Which state would you rather reside in? One that has a death penalty or one that does not?
Gee that's a tough one. Some studies say the death penalty won't significantly deter you from committing murders. Those same studies claim that murder rates are lower in states without the death penalty.
That means, if you are an axe murderer, or an inbred chainsaw massacre-er, you will hack up fewer people if you move to a non-death-penalty state. Good to know!
If eliminating the death penalty reduces the murder rate, why not reduce all other penalties for all other crimes? The crime rate will surely drop like a stone on Bubba’s inbred toe.
Imagine crimes like theft, rape and arson becoming things of the past. All we need to do is to give prisoners more cable T.V. and conjugal visits. And don’t keep them in that stuffy prison too long.
One thing that bothers me though: why doesn’t the Mob eliminate its death penalty? Haven’t they read the latest studies? Don’t they know that rubbing out Vinnie for double-crossing the family won’t significantly deter future double-crosses?
These are the kinds of questions that pop into my head, and there are probably some of you who would like to pop a bullet into my head. Let’s assume that is the case. Back to the original question:
Given your proclivity towards murder, which state would you rather reside in--a death-penalty state or a non-death-penalty state?
I think your answer will clear up the controversy significantly.
Sources:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2007
http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut4.htm
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406_2.html
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 174
too many innocent humans are incarcerated~mistakes are gonna happen
dna evidence continues to be refined~once it is 100% accurate kindly put down the serial killers, rapists and pedophiles~
thank you
Give them an overdose of what Michael Jackson died from, just to be humane about it.
Le'ts get rid of all the baddddddd guys! (gals too)
Here's my answer... the question would never occur to me as a serial killer. Serial killers don't think that way. If they did, Ted Bundy would still be alive, in a jail cell in Michigan. He moved from state to state, killing as he went. Never gave a thought to what would happen if he got caught in one State or another.
As for one-time killers: most are into the moment, and don't think about punishment 'til later, or they plan to get away with it (and a lot of 'em do - death penalty state or no).
As to the appeals process and the Innocence Project... innocent people are still dying, and still incarcerated - for murders they didn't commit. "Kill 'em all! The Lord will know his own." may have been a good attitude for a Crusader Knight, but it brings small comfort to an innocent man about to die.
"Some studies say the death penalty is a better deterrent."
Nope. That's straight up not true. No study of the death penalty and murder rates, or any other measure of deterrence, that I've ever heard of, has EVER supported the death penalty as a particularly effective deterrent.
Except the ones who do think that way, and because they did think that way, the murder rate dropped according to some studies.
"If they did, Ted Bundy would still be alive, in a jail cell in Michigan."
You mean: if Ted Bundy thought that way, he would be alive...
"He moved from state to state, killing as he went. Never gave a thought to what would happen if he got caught in one State or another."
So if one serial killer is an idiot, then they all are idiots? OK. Including the ones we did not hear about on the news because they weren't caught, because they stopped killing for fear of being killed.
"As for one-time killers: most are into the moment, and don't think about punishment 'til later, or they plan to get away with it (and a lot of 'em do - death penalty state or no)."
One has to wonder why so many governents throughout history thought the death penalty would be effective. I guess they did not have the benefit of the latest study from the bleeding hearts' club.
"As to the appeals process and the Innocence Project... innocent people are still dying, and still incarcerated - for murders they didn't commit."
Can you name some? I don't recall any news stories showing an innocent suspect was executed.
"Kill 'em all! The Lord will know his own." may have been a good attitude for a Crusader Knight, but it brings small comfort to an innocent man about to die."
Yeah, I suppose the comfort would be small.
"Some studies say the death penalty is a better deterrent."
Nope. That's straight up not true. No study of the death penalty and murder rates, or any other measure of deterrence, that I've ever heard of, has EVER supported the death penalty as a particularly effective deterrent."
You might want to check some of the sources I provided. The last couple of links cite many studies that contradict your assertion.
The death penalty is for poor people. OJ, Robert Blake, if you have money you won't have to worry about it. If you don't have any money, you'll end up on death row.
I am now an opponent to the death penalty except in certain extreme cases. No, don't even ask, I'm not even going to try and explain what those case might be. It would have to be on a case-by-case basis.
I don't think that those who have committed such crimes deserve the well rounded meals, warm clothing and a roof over their head that the rest of us have to work our asses off to have. The money it takes to keep them alive could be better spent some where else - where it's appreciated.
I am so relieved to hear you say that.
Where did that myth about cable TV and conjugal visits come from? It could not be farther from the truth in most states. A few federal white-collar-crime prisons are sort of country clubs, but not state, country or city ones.
I love your sense of humor, but this is a real hot-button issue, since my husband is in his 26th year of a sentence for a crime he did not commit, even though the guy who did confessed and the judge accepted the confession as evidence but refused to have a new trial, which would surely have gotten John home. He was, as the perpetrator attested, an intended victim, and they held a gun to his head to make him drive. The judge said that's enough for a life sentence, and the others involved served no time. That's Florida, and most of the South, for you!
Project Innocence, and other proofs have shown the entire world what a barbaric, and unjust society we are.
Project Innocence and other proofs indicate the majority of those are Black/people of colour, uneducated, and didn't have more than $50 in their pocket at the same of being arrested.
So, it is NOT a stretch to conclude that the poor, the uneducated, and non-Whites are those who have been more severely dealt a bad hand where the death penalty, and its biased application are concerned.
Another thought: just how many innocent people have been MURDERED by the unjust application of the the death penalty. If the answer is even ONE, then we ought to feel ashamed, and we -- who are in favor of the death penalty -- are most certainly guilty ourselves of murder.
I think I would still be pro death penalty. The risk of me being falsely convicted is far lower than the risk of being murdered in the absense of the death penalty. Of course there are studies that contradict this assertion. If there is anything to them then the death penalty should be abolished along with all other punishment, since punishment allegedly provides no deterent.
OK, Neeeta, I answered your question. Now answer mine. If you were a murderer, where would you reside?
Now, the other question: where would I reside?
I would reside in the Hell of my mind, of my guilt
I cannot fathom myself being a murderer, Gary. However, no matter what the circumstances and/or situation,
I am a California girl -- born, raised, and shall die that way, as long as I reside in this country!
Buy grapes, and lots, and lots of them!
So your answer is "death-penalty" state. You are anti-death-penalty, but you prefer a death penalty state. Hmmmmmmm....?
I always buy redflame grapes. Great for the heart! Eat lots of red cabbage--anti-cancer food.
Had you asked if I were
a butcher,
a baker, or
a candlestick maker,
my response would still be the same: California.
LOL! Do you really expect anyone to believe you?
This is just a suggestion, I don't know the results. :|
Hurray for Iowa!
Heavens to Murgatroidl!!
One of the problems with it detering crime is it can lead to more crime.
Say you live in a state that has capital punishment for rape.
The rapist knows he can get electrocuted or lethal injection if he is caught so he kills the witness aka the rape victim....less of a chance to get caught that way.
I dont know how you get to abolish all punishment from what I said. I in no way advocate that.
I am against the death penalty but I also do not believe in cushy prisons. I lked the idea of chain gangs.
Usually you have to be guilty of first degree murder and then you would last many years on appeals.
Although I disagree with the death penalty I dont put it high on my list of priorities as far as complaining and general protests go.
IF I were a serial killer I would want to live in a non death penalty state.
Johnny: Kimber, you win an exciting vacation to a Florida hotel and lots of film for your camera! (You jump and down and scream!)
TILT! TILT! TILT!
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!
I have personal reasons for having the views I have - I explained them in posts I have made and other comments on other death penalty articles. I don't expect people to agree with me but MY VIEWS WON'T CHANGE!!! I say use it more often and for more crimes. PEDOPHILES - PUT THEM TO DEATH, WIFE BEATERS - Put them to death, people who have been arrested more than 3 times no matter the crime - put them to death etc! That is just my opinion.
If you were the one to inject/hang/flip the switch, would you be for it?
If you oppose abortion are you for it?
Life's complicated when you have to be an adult.
And I do not think it matters to the bad guys what the laws are. They don't plan on following them, and they think they will never be caught.
Where do I sign? lol.
"If you were the one to inject/hang/flip the switch, would you be for it?"
I grew up on a farm and had to slaughter chickens, so no problem.
"If you oppose abortion are you for it?"
Yes. Babies never murdered anyone. They don't deserve to die.
"Life's complicated when you have to be an adult."
For me it always came easily. Just lucky I guess.
"And I do not think it matters to the bad guys what the laws are. They don't plan on following them, and they think they will never be caught."
So why not do away with our entire judicial system? If what you say is true, then it is a colossal waste of money.
For some strange reason, our system thinks it needs penalties to disuade people in addition to laws. Why would they come up with such a dasterdly scheme? Assuming it is an effective scheme, wouldn't harsh penalties be more of a deterent against crime than soft penalties or no penalties?
What about the studies that don't show a drop in the murder rate when executions are carried out?
Wow! That was real zinger! LOL! I think my nine-year-old neighbor could do better though. If you want to stoop to making ad hominem attacks, try calling me a stupid poo poo head.
"I see no convincing argument that any particular study is absurd just because you don't happen to like or agree with the conclusions."
And here we have another straw man. I never said I don't happen to like or agree with the conclusions. I merely demonstrated with satire the absurdity of those conclusions. If you think the conclusions of your favorite studies are sound, then answer the original question put to you:
If you were are murderer, would you prefer a non-death-penalty state? Your refusal to answer this question reveals your own doubts about the validity of your favorite studies.
You failed.
" If you think the conclusions of your favorite studies are sound, then answer the original question put to you"
You dumbass question has nothing to do with the conclusions of any studies.
"Your refusal to answer this question reveals your own doubts about the validity of your favorite studies."
No it doesn't. My refusal to answer your question reveals my belief that your question is stupid.
You are right. It is a stupid question, because any five-year-old can answer it. It is obvious that if you were a murderer, you would prefer a non-DP state. Therefore, the death penalty is in fact a deterent.
Did not!
"Did to!"
I see you prefer those schoolyard debates. Your mommy told you the death penalty was wrong and your mommy is always right.
Maybe you should stick to discussing the issue with five-year-olds, then. They might be more likely to accept it when you ask them questions and then tell them what the "obvious" answer must be. A few of them might even be silly enough to buy into your ridiculous and completely unsupported conclusion.
No, your mommy told me that the death penalty was wrong. She also told me that I could "Wham my Oingo Boing into her Velvet Underground" for twenty bucks, but I told her I just wanted my windshield cleaned before the light changed.
Haven't I been talking to you? Yes I think I have. Most five-year-olds get it. They understand, even at that early age, the psychology of self-preservation. That is my support for my conclusion which you say does not exist. LOL!
Most gatherers would delete a comment like this. But I will keep it here so the public can see what a low-life you are.
I didn't say your conclusion doesn't exist. I said it was ridiculous and completely unsupported.
"Most gatherers would delete a comment like this. But I will keep it here so the public can see what a low-life you are."
It's good to see that, whatever else you might be, at least you're not a comment-deleting gutless coward.
Well both my conclusion and that which supports it both exist, so you may as well say my conclusion does not exist. For the benefit of the mentally challenged:
A. Murderers have a survival instinct like most other preditors.
B. Because they have this instinct, they fear death.
C. Because they fear death, and because some have a luke-warm IQ, some murderers refrain from murdering people, when the threat of life imprisonment fails to deter them, if there is a death penalty.
The above is a summary of my conclusion and supporting arguments.
Now that's a rediculous statement! If it is true, no convicted murderer was ever executed. If there were any executions, then the death penalty would have some impact on the likelyhood of death for accused murderers. (See logic 101.)
More recently, investigations into death row sentences in Illinois revealed 42 wrongful convictions since 1970, of which sixty percent rested in whole or in part on wrongful confessions. A full third of the false confessions were given by the defendants themselves.
The only way you can avoid any wrongful conviction is to let all the crooks out of jail just in case.
Let them all out is idiotic. No one is advocating this. Not once did anyone say that in order to make sure we dont have the wrong person in prison we should let everyone out.
This does not bode well for the efficacy of executing alleged murderers...
So what you are saying is: if you were a serial killer, your brain would shut off.
Using your question as the premise, I'll illistrate my point: Say that a serial killer lives in a state ( any one) which has the death penalty, and he's been killing for a while; but of course hasn't been caught yet. For the sake of this argument, let's say he wants to kill more people; but he is concerned about being caught and executed- so he decides to go to another state which doesn't have the death penalty- since your question implies that the death penalty may make a difference to a serial killer.
So this serial killer goes to another state which doesn't have the death penalty, and continues to kill people. First of all..... if the death penalty was that big of a detterent, enough to cause the serial killer to think about it that much; then the state where the serial killer originally came from would have a much lower crime rate- and the state w/o the death penalty where he went to continue his killing would have a much higher crime rate. Wouldn't the states notice a pattern eventually? The states w/o the death penalty would have a drastically higher violent crime rate, whereas; the states with the death penalty would have a much lower violent crime rate. once states w/o the death penalty noticed that serial killers afraid of the death penalty, were coming to their state; they would also enact the death penalty- therefore causing violent crimes to drop off dramatically. sorry to ramble on so long! just wanted to clearly illistrate my point.
Some would and some wouldn't would be a more accurate statement.
"#2: If the death penalty was THAT big of a detterent to murder or other violent crime, it would be almost non existent in this country."
You could make the same argument against all penalties. Penalties reduce crime; they never abolish crime. Some studies I have read show that the death penalty reduced murders 40%. That is way better than 0%.
"First of all..... if the death penalty was that big of a detterent, enough to cause the serial killer to think about it that much; then the state where the serial killer originally came from would have a much lower crime rate- and the state w/o the death penalty where he went to continue his killing would have a much higher crime rate."
Ah, you are starting to see the light.
"Wouldn't the states notice a pattern eventually?"
I have noticed a pattern, and those who did honest studies on the issue have noticed a pattern.
"The states w/o the death penalty would have a drastically higher violent crime rate, whereas; the states with the death penalty would have a much lower violent crime rate."
Hence the pattern the studies have shown.
"once states w/o the death penalty noticed that serial killers afraid of the death penalty, were coming to their state; they would also enact the death penalty-"
Not if people like you make up the majority.
And I've read studies (probably not included in the links attached to your post) that show otherwise. That you find such studies "highly dubious" is neither here nor there.
Maybe one day you will answer a direct question put to you and make a substantive argument.
Well it is obvious you did not read the links I provided. That says a lot about you.
That you believe that your statement is true says a lot about you. Mainly, I think it says that you're an idiot.
I read the info at the URLs (not links) you provided. Including the info written by Dudley Sharp, whom I've already debated directly here at Gather. What I didn't do was hunt down every study mentioned in every source of info that you provided a URL for, since in several cases they didn't actually provide citations to the studies.
You mean a substantive argument to match your "let's execute people because I think it's the right thing to do" argument? Get real, Gary.
LOL! I don't think I made that argument. I merely put a direct question to my readers, the one you keep avoiding (because getting real is so important to you? Ha!).
I see you are stooping to ad hominem attacks again. Try taking lessons from my nine-year-old neighbor. He can teach you proper schoolyard etiquette.
"I read the info at the URLs (not links)"
Well technically your eyes read the info (assuming your eyes can read), not your whole body. However, most educated people know what you mean and they know what I mean when I say read the links. Perhaps you are a little slow.
"you provided. Including the info written by Dudley Sharp, whom I've already debated directly here at Gather."
Did you call Dudley an idiot? Or did you rise to a higher level.
"What I didn't do was hunt down every study mentioned in every source of info that you provided a URL for, since in several cases they didn't actually provide citations to the studies."
Well it is pretty obvious "your eyes" did not read the "info" provided by the web pages that my article linked to. (Gee, I hope I got that right. Wouldn't want the mentally challenged to think I'm an idiot.)
Would you prefer if you were the only one who did?
"Did you call Dudley an idiot? Or did you rise to a higher level."
I don't recall, but I could go back and check for you if it really matters. I remember that he called me a "rude fellow". Is that a higher or lower level than you calling me "mentally challenged"?
"Well it is pretty obvious "your eyes" did not read the "info" provided by the web pages that my article linked to."
I read the info. More importantly, I've read many of the actual studies. Have you?
Oh, and eyes don't read. Idiot.
Would you prefer if you were the only one who did?
My preference is that you argue intellegently and calmly. Read some of the other anti-DP comments. They keep it civil, and some make some pretty good arguments, so you might pick up a few pointers.
"Did you call Dudley an idiot? Or did you rise to a higher level."
I don't recall, but I could go back and check for you if it really matters. I remember that he called me a "rude fellow". Is that a higher or lower level than you calling me "mentally challenged"?
Oh definitely lower. You see, "mentally challenged" is a politically correct term. It is rude to call someone an idiot or a retard, but "mentally challenged" is socially acceptable.
"I read the info. More importantly, I've read many of the actual studies. Have you?"
LOL! I have read the one's I linked to. Since you are so well-informed, perhaps you can rise above the ad homs for five minutes and share your knowledge with the rest of us.
Oh, and eyes don't read. Idiot.
Oh, I see: you read the studies using your big toe--the one with the ingrown toenail. Try using your eyes next time. :-)
You didn't link to, or provide URLs for, any studies.
"Oh definitely lower. You see, "mentally challenged" is a politically correct term. It is rude to call someone an idiot or a retard, but "mentally challenged" is socially acceptable."
OK. Then you're a politically correct idiot. Happy now?
I see you are having trouble finding the studies that my links can lead you to. That's OK. Just go at your own pace and take it slow.
"OK. Then you're a politically correct idiot. Happy now?"
You can't find the studies my links lead you to, and I am the politically correct idiot? LOL!
Most educated people understand that a "link" and "URL" refer to the same thing. Further, in everyday parlance, "URL" is seldom used. Perhaps you have spent a lot of time in a cell and don't get out much? (Note that I put that last ad hom in the form of a question, so according to your rule, I am excused.)
I don't pretend to know what "most educated people" understand, but the simple fact is that a URL and a link are not the same thing.
"I see you are having trouble finding the studies that my links can lead you to."
No, I was simply pointing out that you didn't link to any studies, which means that you haven't read any studies (since you claimed to have read the studies that you linked to). I suppose that might explain your level of ignorance on the subject.
Click the link below:
"A link is the "address" to a document (or a resource) on the web."
So Will, how long have you been an idiot?
No, I was simply pointing out that you didn't link to any studies, which means that you haven't read any studies (since you claimed to have read the studies that you linked to). I suppose that might explain your level of ignorance on the subject.
And suppose you think "denial" is a river in Egypt.
And what you supplied was an actual link. I clicked it and accessed the document specified by the URL that was included in the link. If you actually read the info in that document, then you know that you earlier failed to use the HTML code necessary to create links. Instead, you merely provided the URLs.
"So Will, how long have you been an idiot?"
Apparently not as long as you've had unresolved sexual issues with your mother.
"And suppose you think "denial" is a river in Egypt."
You didn't link to any studies. You didn't provide URLs to any studies.You claimed that you've read the studies that you linked to, which means you've read no studies. Maybe you followed some links from the sites you provided URLs for and found some studies and read them, but if so, I haven't seen any evidence of that in either your article or your comments.
Well you haven't quite covered your ass here. Your buttcrack is still showing. Let's review, shall we?
"A link is the "address" to a document (or a resource) on the web." I provided addresses to documents. AKA: links. Comprende?
"So Will, how long have you been an idiot?"
Apparently not as long as you've had unresolved sexual issues with your mother.
Oh, so you're an ad hom idiot. LOL! I take it that you have resolved your sexual issues with your mother. How disgusting!
You didn't link to any studies. You didn't provide URLs to any studies.You claimed that you've read the studies that you linked to, which means you've read no studies.
Well no; that's incorrect. If I link to a link that leads to a study, then I am linking indirectly to a study. You seem to be confused. You think link means direct link only.
Maybe you followed some links from the sites you provided URLs for and found some studies and read them,
Now you are getting the idea. Good job!
but if so, I haven't seen any evidence of that in either your article or your comments.
Again you have failed logic 101. If I never read any studies, then I probably would not be aware of them in the first instance. Thus I would fail to mention them altogether in my article. If my position was "studies? What studies?"--then your point would actually have merit. As it stands, it is the mere ramblings of a desperate man trying so hard to appear intelligent. LOL! I find your comments very entertaining!
Put another way, wipe out, eliminate, and get rid of any and every thing that may place me in a death penalty situation, aka MURDER -- definitely premeditated. Now, THAT makes the most sense in the context of being a criminal really making any sense at all.
If we follow your logic to its logical conclusion, then it would make sense to abolish all penalties for all crimes, then no criminal would have any reason to murder any witnesses. The problem is they would have no disincentive to commit the crimes in the first instance.
Another way is to put yourself in the shoes of a person who has been wrongfully convicted of murder.
And yet another way is to put yourself in the shoes of a person who believes that it's wrong for the government, any government, to kill its citizens.
"Another way is to put yourself in the shoes of a person who has been wrongfully convicted of murder."
If I were wrongfully convicted, I would take advantage of the endless appeals I have the right to make. Of course, if the evidence is overwhelmingly against me (and it is when the death penalty is imposed), and I have been convicted twice because I had a retrial, and two juries unanmously convicted me, and I have used up all my appeals and governer refuses to pardon me, I don't think I would want to live at that point. I would be too depressed.
"And yet another way is to put yourself in the shoes of a person who believes that it's wrong for the government, any government, to kill its citizens."
So you are pro-life? OK, let's say you are a cop and some punk is trying to kill you, what will you do? Well, if you are to be consistent, you would simply let the punk kill you, otherwise you might violate your code. You might have to kill the punk to save yourself.
I didn't think you'd mind, since I've noticed you do it too.
"I would take advantage of the endless appeals I have the right to make."
You wouldn't have the right to make endless appeals. You're just making stuff up.
"OK, let's say you are a cop and some punk is trying to kill you, what will you do? Well, if you are to be consistent, you would simply let the punk kill you, otherwise you might violate your code. You might have to kill the punk to save yourself."
An executioner isn't acting in self-defense. If it is later discovered that the prisoner was wrongly convicted and/or executed, does that mean the individual(s) involved in executing that prisoner deserve to be charged with murder? Or do you think they should be covered by the "just doin' my job" defense?
"So you are pro-life?
If I were, does that mean that you're pro-death?
I didn't think you'd mind, since I've noticed you do it too.
LOL! You still avoided the question. Then you falsely accuse me of what you do. How can you live with yourself? Below is one of my answers to your questions--DUH!:
"I would take advantage of the endless appeals I have the right to make."
You wouldn't have the right to make endless appeals. You're just making stuff up.
LOL! "Endless appeals" is just a figure of speech--DUH!
An executioner isn't acting in self-defense.
At last, you finally get on base.
If it is later discovered that the prisoner was wrongly convicted and/or executed, does that mean the individual(s) involved in executing that prisoner deserve to be charged with murder?
Of course not, the execution was legally sanctioned. Murder is not. I am happy to see you are concerned for the innocent, but I bet if a pregnant mother killed her innocent child you would be perfectly OK with that. The likelyhood that an executed prisoner is innocent is way way smaller than the the likelyhood that an unborn child is innocent.
Or do you think they should be covered by the "just doin' my job" defense?
No such defense would be necessary as explained previously. No defense is necessary for baby killings either.
"So you are pro-life?
If I were, does that mean that you're pro-death?
LOL! If I were, does that mean you eat lima beans and avoid every direct question put to you?
Can you provide a link to the law that sanctions the execution of innocent people please.
"I am happy to see you are concerned for the innocent, but I bet if a pregnant mother killed her innocent child you would be perfectly OK with that."
Then you'd lose that bet. I hope you don't spend much time in Vegas.
"If I were, does that mean you eat lima beans and avoid every direct question put to you?"
I love lima beans, and I answer lots of questions.
Not a student of law? OK. The scenario was a suspect found guilty--not innocent. Then it was found out later the suspect was innocent. What I find interesting is the notion that the system could get it wrong when the suspect was found guilty but there is no way the system could be wrong if it ever found him to be innocent subsequently. What if the system is wrong in finding the suspect not guilty? The suspect is released and kills you or someone you know. How many more lives are lost because we let murderers go? Again, it comes down to whether you prefer to protect victims or criminals. You are not more compassionate because you prefer the deaths of unborn children and other innocent victims over murderers.
But not the ones that make you think.
Wrong again, dumbass.
Do you have a link to the law or not? What law says it's OK to execute people who aren't guilty of the crimes for which they're being executed?
Well...if your mommy told you I am wrong then I must be.
Do you have a link to the law or not? What law says it's OK to execute people who aren't guilty of the crimes for which they're being executed?
I have already answered YOUR stupid question even though you refuse to answer mine. In fact I have answered all your stupid questions. Since you are slow on the uptake, let's go over it again:
There is no law that specifically states if is OK to execute people who aren't guilty. However, there is a due-process clause that states that you can not be deprived of your life without due process. The implication being: you can be deprived of your life as long as you were provided due process. The court need not be 100% certain of your guilt--you only need to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt--even though you might be innocent of a crime.
Now let's get into why your question is stupid. Your question is stupid because you don't really care if the accused is innocent or not. If he was 100% guilty, you would still opose the death penalty. I refer you to exhibit A, your own words:
And yet another way is to put yourself in the shoes of a person who believes that it's wrong for the government, any government, to kill its citizens.
Therefore, your question is not only stupid, but irrelevant to your true position.
You're wrong whether my mommy told me you are or not. You're also an idiot. Your mommy told me that. You're not calling your mommy a liar, are you Gary?
"You are not more compassionate because you prefer the deaths of unborn children and other innocent victims over murderers."
Silly Gary, I don't prefer the deaths of unborn children over murderers. I don't it's perfectly reasonable for those who believe that it's wrong for the government to kill its citizens to also believe that it's wrong for the government to kill its citizens' unborn children.
"The court need not be 100% certain of your guilt--you only need to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt--even though you might be innocent of a crime."
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and innocent of the crime at the same time? How exactly does that work? Now you've got lawyers, judges, jurors and who-knows-how-many other people involved in the "due process" of executing an innocent person, and yet your keenly-honed sense of justice doesn't demand that all of these people be killed?
You tell me. You seem to think the government is executing the innocent. Now you need clarification on YOUR previous point? OK, a person found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt can later be found not guilty if evidence later emerged proving his innocence. Now who is the idiot again?
Now you've got lawyers, judges, jurors and who-knows-how-many other people involved in the "due process" of executing an innocent person, and yet your keenly-honed sense of justice doesn't demand that all of these people be killed?
Yeah, I think you are starting to catch on (maybe not). Murderers, for the most part, don't give their victims any due process. The officials you mentioned do, so there lies the difference.
Interesting choice of words. You believe it is wrong for the government to kill its citizens' unborn children. But you believe it is OK for private citizens to kill their unborn children?
And you seem to think that it's OK for the government to execute the innocent, as long as they only make up a small percentage of those who are executed.
"Murderers, for the most part, don't give their victims any due process. The officials you mentioned do, so there lies the difference."
Due process has to do with the law, not with justice. I thought that you were interested in justice?
Sure. Don't you?
"But you believe it is OK for private citizens to kill their unborn children?"
Yes, I believe that in certain circumstances, it is OK for for people to kill their unborn children. Specifically, I believe that it's OK for a pregnant women to terminate her pregnancy if she chooses. Do you believe that aborting a fetus should be a capital crime?
Wrong again. I simply pointed out the government has the right to deprive you of your life as long as it gives you due process. Re: the number of innocents who were executed, I can't think of any off hand. Who was executed and later found innocent?
Due process has to do with the law, not with justice. I thought that you were interested in justice?
You may want to expound on what you think the law is and what justice is. Most people think the two are related.
OK, so if it is OK to kill a baby who isn't even charged with a crime, and who didn't even get a fair trial, then why are you so up in arms about the killing of someone who committed murder? Even if he is innocent, the killing is no worse than abortion.
Do you believe that aborting a fetus should be a capital crime?
If the mother was in danger of losing her life, no. If the mother was an irresponsible slut, then yes.
So these aren't your comments?andDo these comments not mean that as long as the number of wrongful executions is kept down to a number that you consider acceptable, you're cool with the idea that some innocent people will be (and have been) executed?
"Re: the number of innocents who were executed, I can't think of any off hand. Who was executed and later found innocent?"
Todd Willingham.
"OK, so if it is OK to kill a baby who isn't even charged with a crime, and who didn't even get a fair trial, then why are you so up in arms about the killing of someone who committed murder? "
I didn't say it was OK to kill a baby, regardless of whether they've been charged with a crime and given a fair trial or not. Babies, like convicted murderers, are people. Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses aren't people.
"If the mother was in danger of losing her life, no. If the mother was an irresponsible slut, then yes."
You think every woman who has an abortion for any other reason is an irresponsible slut? That's seriously messed up, Gary. You really do have unresolved sexual issues with your mother, don't you? Get help, Gary. Maybe it's not too late.
OK, here is where you fail logic 101 yet again. If I or the system was cool with innocent people being executed, there would be no effort made to keep the numbers down. I am cool with zero innocents being executed. Unfortunately, I live in the real world where people are either murdered or executed no matter what policies are in effect.
"Re: the number of innocents who were executed, I can't think of any off hand. Who was executed and later found innocent?"
Todd Willingham.
That's a very short list. Why was he found innocent?
"According to the documents submitted to The Texas Forensic Science Commission, which released on Tuesday, Craig Byler revealed that the standards adhered to in the fire investigation on the Cameron Todd Willingham were certainly inappropriate, and misleading.
"Byler said that the investigators had misconceptions about fire science, and were incognizant of the methodologies, and of “the process of elimination”. To top it all even a psychologist with a post graduate degree in his subject had proved to the court that Todd was nothing less than a malicious sociopath, irrespective of his own credentials of being limited to family counseling and petty follow ups of the sorts."
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world/texas-slewed-innocent-todd-willingham_100243000.html
It does not appear the court found him innocent, but a political activist group. Further, there is nothing in the opinion that proves Todd was innocent. It is simply spin which most likely leaves out a lot of facts. I can't help but notice that none of the skeptics offered an alternative theory to explain the fire and murder of those innocent kids. Someone named Byler has a negative opinion about the process, so therefore a murderer is innocent? LOL! There is always bound to be a dissenting voice in all cases. Voices of dissent prove nothing. Only evidence is admissable in the court of law--not hand waving.
I didn't say it was OK to kill a baby, regardless of whether they've been charged with a crime and given a fair trial or not. Babies, like convicted murderers, are people. Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses aren't people.
So just pretend murderers aren't people like you pretend that fetuses aren't people.
You think every woman who has an abortion for any other reason is an irresponsible slut? That's seriously messed up, Gary. You really do have unresolved sexual issues with your mother, don't you? Get help, Gary. Maybe it's not too late.
Or, maybe the irresponsible slut should get help, maybe learn a little self-control. But that's that grown-up stuff you kids don't want to be bothered with. I'll let you get back to smoking your crackpipe and knocking up teens.
Most murders are committed by friends and family and have motives like jealousy, greed, and delusions. Despite what you see on TV, there just aren't that many serial killers. People that murder for gain might be deterred by the fear of execution but maybe not. After all, if you get caught you can't spend the money. Crimes of passion or delusion aren't likely to be deterred by anything that would deter a rational person.
BTW, a couple of hundred years ago and more when the death penalty was applied a lot more widely in Western society it didn't seem to have that much of an effect on crime.
You can make the revenge argument against all penalties. Any penalty you deem to be too harsh is just revenge. I think you are confusing revenge with justice. Revenge is taking the law into your own hands, violating the law. Those who murder someone out of revenge could face the death penalty which is not revenge, but justice, because it is sanctioned by law.
Because running a red light, just like murdering someone, is against the law. Presumably, the reason it is against the law is because we believe that it is inappropriate behavior that we'd like to minimize and eventually eliminate. Executing those who break that law would not only mean the red light runner would never be capable of doing so again, but if it's true that executing lawbreakers deters others from breaking the law, it would stop other potential red light runners.
"It really isn't hard to figure out what is fair and just."
As long as everybody just shuts up and agrees with you, right?
So true! You may be on to something! However, your sense of justice and proportion is totally missing.
"As long as everybody just shuts up and agrees with you, right?"
Oh, here you go with the lies again. I never told you or anyone to shut up; your comments have been freely allowed. Showing your absurdity is not the same as telling you to shut up. Again, it is not hard to figure out. It only requires a little common sense.
No it's not. Apparently it just doesn't match up close enough to your sense of justice and proportion.
"Oh, here you go with the lies again."
I didn't lie. I asked a question. Didn't your mommy teach you the difference? Apparently not.
"Showing your absurdity is not the same as telling you to shut up."
The only absurdity you're showing is your own.
"Again, it is not hard to figure out. It only requires a little common sense."
Uh-huh. The thing is, a lot of stuff that people claim to be "common sense" is wrong. And some of it's not just wrong, but idiotic as well.
No it's not. Apparently it just doesn't match up close enough to your sense of justice and proportion.
LOL! I see my sarcasm went over your head again.
"Oh, here you go with the lies again."
I didn't lie. I asked a question. Didn't your mommy teach you the difference? Apparently not.
Oh, well putting it in the form of a question totally excuses you. LOL! Are you really that stupid? (Note I put that ad hom in the form of a question. So I am excused.)
"The only absurdity you're showing is your own. "
LOL! Please list my most absurd statement and list what you think is your most brilliant statement, and let's compare the two.
Uh-huh. The thing is, a lot of stuff that people claim to be "common sense" is wrong. And some of it's not just wrong, but idiotic as well.
Because your mommy told you, or because your big toe read some studies, or because those who disagree are idiots? You make some powerful and compelling arguments. LMAO!