Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2015, 08:26 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(27-05-2015 03:56 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
1 more step towards critical mass. Once half of states outlaw this barbaric practice it will tip the balance of the 8th and force the issue. Cruel, unusual, barbaric, ineffective, prone to error, irrevocable, no deterrent to crime, more expensive by 3 fold than life imprisonment, is there any upside to being on the short list with North Korea and Iran in still allowing this?

Oh, come now. Advanced countries like Somalia and Sudan still have it. Not to mention China. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-05-2015, 05:19 AM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2015 05:23 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(21-05-2015 01:11 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Um, did you actually read my post?
Focus on this bit
"I don't see why less due diligence is applied to lifers. A life time in prison is still a wasted life."
Since when does a shoplifter get life imprisonment?

Since you clearly missed my point, I'll try to make it again, in the hopes that it'll sink in: convicts not facing the death penalty make fewer appeals, and the resultant appeals process costs less..

(21-05-2015 01:11 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Oh, and that point that you imagined that I have avoided answering. Do you remember me stating that a bullet is cheaper than a life time supply of food?
We swap one for the other and save money in the process.
The lifer gets the same opportunity for defense as does the person facing a death sentence.

Apparently you don't realize that some costs -- say, for instance, trust in the judicial system -- cannot be measured in dollars and cents; although that's a point already made in this thread, and yet still unanswered. Never mind the fact that the expense of the death penalty arises from the legal fees you'd do away with by magically reducing the appeals process, rather than the cost of the killing itself.

Oh, and you never did answer my question: how do you propose to reduce the cost of the death penalty without raising the rate of innocent penalties?

Your points are terribly unconvincing, and reek of uninformed revenge porn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2015, 05:20 AM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(27-05-2015 03:56 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
1 more step towards critical mass. Once half of states outlaw this barbaric practice it will tip the balance of the 8th and force the issue. Cruel, unusual, barbaric, ineffective, prone to error, irrevocable, no deterrent to crime, more expensive by 3 fold than life imprisonment, is there any upside to being on the short list with North Korea and Iran in still allowing this?


Well, sure there is -- it allows some folk to play the Tough Guy online while pontificating upon matters they don't understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The opportunity to murder an inmate?

I've never met one, but I'm sure a few have come out of prison better than when they went in, but they can't be a success story if they are murdered before their sentence is up!
I'm certain you did not mean that to imply that inmates are lesser, inferior, or otherwise worth less of our consideration, I'm just taking the opportunity to remind everyone that inmates are people, too! Shy

(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  1) In the event of error, it cannot be undone or compensated.

Would a system that allowed for the execution of a person already convicted of premeditated murder, if & only if:
+ They attempted murder again, while in prison for committing that very crime
+ They were caught on video making the attempt
+ They were clearly shown, in that video, as not having done so to defend themselves from attack.
+ They've openly admitted that they'll never stop trying "cuz screw you copper" (or any other better-articulated reason Tongue )
alleviate your concerns that an innocent could ever be put to death by accident?

Obviously that list is rudimentary, and could no doubt use even more criteria added in! My assumption, of course, is that a person wrongfully convicted of murder wouldn't be caught on camera trying to kill for the first time lest he be driven by self-preservation!

(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  2) It is too expensive, and the only way to cut its cost is to expose more innocent people to unjust killing.

You are right in that it is too expensive, currently, but that last bit, along with using bullets, are not the only ways to make it less so!
I read, somewhere around here, that nitrogen bags are cheap, and cause no pain! Just as a starting point!

(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  3) It doesn't deliver the advertised benefits except for cutting recidivism, and that can be accomplished in a more efficient and yes, just manner.

What it does do, however, is drop the chance of someone who fits into the new, many times more stringent, list I made above, from ever getting the chance to kill again!

PLEASE do not take this as an attack on you, your intelligence, your stance, or on that of anybody who agrees with you! It is merely a question! One that I would very much like to see answered! I'm not drawing any conclusions, nor saying that they are equal (cuz obviously one is a bunch a bloated crap Tongue )!

Excluding the level of possible (ONLY the possibility) dishonesty, what is the essential difference between:
+ Fox New only showing their viewers what they want them to see, sometimes out of context, and often without the full story, on any number of topics
-and-
+ Bringing to everyone's attention how the Death Penalty kills innocents, and costs more than life imprisonment without adding on the caveat that those problems could be fixed without doing away with the penalty, itself?

I suck at relieving tension in others, but I agree with TurkeyBurner! Shy
(20-05-2015 12:44 PM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  If there still existed a wilderness to which they could be exiled to live out the rest of their days with no risk to and no help from the society that they harmed then that would be fine with me.

I don't know why but that made me consider a fully automated prison, but it did! You can already open a whole cell block with a button, or 2! Automate the whole thing! Just so I can be satisfied that no one EVER had to get close to the most heinous! It wouldn't be cost efficient by a long shot (or even possible Dodgy ), but I can dream of Terminator guards patrolling the yard, too, right? Tongue
You go on run up on Terminator, Mr Convict! Shank him in the neck, see how that works out for ya! Evil_monster Laugh out load

Seriously though, I don't NEED them to die! I NEED 100% safety for everyone else. So long as a nurse need be called in occasionally to check a pulse, that's an opportunity for things to go horribly wrong! I'm sure the explanation of "it was the guard's fault" would be cold comfort to someone loosing a family member! So much so that they'd forget to remind the person who'd said it that, though it was his/her fault he/she made a mistake, it was not his/her fault that the mistake he/she did make resulted in his/her death! Because the mistake wouldn't even be a thing that would have to be guarded against if the murderer had been executed long ago!

(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The miniscule chance of escape?

The chances of a mishap like the one I just mentioned are miniscule, too! But neither are so far beyond the realm of possibility that I can claim they'll never happen, even once, before the stars burn out, or civilization ends! The difference between an escape and a murder committed by someone who confessed that he'll never stop trying to kill, is that we know when one is being attempted... every moment the criminal still breaths!

Hobo Facepalm Sad
Sorry! I keep posting in these threads hoping to see just one person from the anti-death penalty side acknowledge that my proposed fix, though simple and in need of major improvement, is NOT in fact barbaric, and that I'm not a meanie head for wanting to maximize the safety of people I've never even met while simultaneously eliminating the chance of an innocent person accidentally being put to death in a painless, and potentially incredibly cheap fashion!
Meh.


I'll go sit in my utterly illogical, comlpetely unreasonable, overly cruel, bad idea of a stance the corner, now! Undecided
......
...
Consider If the level of inhumanity we heap upon them (as opposed to simply being rid of them) isn't an issue, we could amputate their arms and legs at the stumps, & remove the teeth from their heads! That would render them relatively safe for proximity to others while still being able to be wheeled up to a TV, or pay for a blowjob with cigarettes! Big Grin
I know! I'm a horrible person for laughing at the visual that conjured in my mind! Confused

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2015, 06:31 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(28-05-2015 06:22 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  Would a system that allowed for the execution of a person already convicted of premeditated murder, if & only if:
+ They attempted murder again, while in prison for committing that very crime
+ They were caught on video making the attempt
+ They were clearly shown, in that video, as not having done so to defend themselves from attack.
+ They've openly admitted that they'll never stop trying "cuz screw you copper" (or any other better-articulated reason Tongue )
alleviate your concerns that an innocent could ever be put to death by accident?

Well, sure. That's a lot of ifs, but hey, I'm game.

(28-05-2015 06:22 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  Obviously that list is rudimentary, and could no doubt use even more criteria added in! My assumption, of course, is that a person wrongfully convicted of murder wouldn't be caught on camera trying to kill for the first time lest he be driven by self-preservation!

Clearly, some killers kill justly by our lights, and others not so much. And no, simply the victim being a convict is not a mitigating factor.

(28-05-2015 06:22 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  You are right in that it is too expensive, currently, but that last bit, along with using bullets, are not the only ways to make it less so!
I read, somewhere around here, that nitrogen bags are cheap, and cause no pain! Just as a starting point!

You don't seem to understand that the expense doesn't arise from the method, but rather from the legal appeals.

(28-05-2015 06:22 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  What it does do, however, is drop the chance of someone who fits into a new, many times more stringent, list I made above, from ever getting the chance to kill again!

Of course. And this argument is essentially "if we kill them now, they cannot kill tomorrow" -- but you're not addressing the guilt or innocence of the convicted party.

(28-05-2015 06:22 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  PLEASE do not take this as an attack on you, your intelligence, your stance, or on that of anybody who agrees with you! It is merely a question! One that I would very much like to see answered! I'm not drawing any conclusions, nor saying that they are equal (cuz obviously one is a bunch a bloated crap Tongue )!

Excluding the level of possible (ONLY the possibility) dishonesty, what is the essential difference between:
+ Fox New only showing their viewers what they want them to see, sometimes out of context, and often without the full story, on any number of topics
-and-
+ Bringing to everyone's attention how the Death Penalty kills innocents, and costs more than life imprisonment without adding on the caveat that those problems could be fixed without doing away with the penalty, itself?

The difference is that the first instance is propaganda, while this second is ideally intelligent discussion, albeit with you trying to poison the well here.

(28-05-2015 06:22 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  Sorry! I keep posting in these threads hoping to see just one person from the anti-death penalty side acknowledge that my proposed fix[...]

Perhaps had you read closer, you'd have read that I'm not against the death penalty in all cases.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2015, 07:34 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(28-05-2015 06:31 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Well, sure. That's a lot of ifs, but hey, I'm game.

To allow for an execution to take place without each and every single one of those ifs I listed being checked off, and many many more to boot, would be criminal!

(28-05-2015 06:31 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Clearly, some killers kill justly by our lights, and others not so much. And no, simply the victim being a convict is not a mitigating factor.

That ^^ was in response to my assumption that a person innocent of the murder they were convicted of would ever attempt to actually commit murder. I don't understand what you are trying to say, but I am slow! Tongue

(28-05-2015 06:31 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  You don't seem to understand that the expense doesn't arise from the method, but rather from the legal appeals.

What need for any appeal would there be if all those criteria I listed, and more, were met?
I don't know why most appeals are filed, but if it's simply "cuz i don't wanna die", then that's just tough, friend! I'm sure every criminal in jail for committing murder, everywhere, doesn't want to be there! Tough.

"We've made it nigh on impossible for you to be eligible for execution, but you, through herculean efforts on your part, find yourself in that position! Unfortunately, we are no longer willing to risk the lives of more people to keep you around if you are not willing to go through some rather debilitating surgeries!" Is how I'd put it to the condemned, but I'm sure someone else could come up with softer words!

(28-05-2015 06:31 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Of course. And this argument is essentially "if we kill them now, they cannot kill tomorrow" -- but you're not addressing the guilt or innocence of the convicted party.

I'm not addressing the guilt or innocence of the convicted in the current system of applying the death penalty because I've acknowledged that it's broken, and needs to be changed! The long list of criteria that I propose must be met for anyone to be eligible for it isn't addressing the issue of innocents being sent in by accident?

(28-05-2015 06:31 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The difference is that the first instance is propaganda, while this second is ideally intelligent discussion, albeit with you trying to poison the well here.

What is propaganda? Dodgy Honestly I did make the statement, to which you made this reply, for effect Tongue , but it is no less an honest observation! Call me a Full Disclosure kind of guy, but I look at someone who posts numbers of dead innocents who died by wrongful execution without reminding everyone it wasn't the Penalty's fault for being incorrectly applied, like I look at a gun nut posting stats he forgot to tell everyone was gathered by the NRA! Undecided

(28-05-2015 06:31 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Perhaps had you read closer, you'd have read that I'm not against the death penalty in all cases.

Ah. My bad! Shy
Consider
If it were possible, what do you think about having Terminators roaming the prison walkways? Laugh out load
[Image: Terminator-terminator-9683150-1024-576.jpg]
Homeboy wouldn't hear a peep out a my bitch ass! Confused

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: