Death penalty argument

Then you haven't researched it very well.

Juries are marginally less likely to convict if the death penalty is a possible sentence. IE, the guilty may walk under this system.

The appeals process following a death sentence, and the time spent on death row costs more than regular incarceration.

The number of people on death row indicate that the sentence is not a deterrent.

The ethnic bias on death row shows that the penalty is not handed out evenly.

OK, there's four off the top of my head. Maybe if you'd just spent a few seconds thinking about the issue, you'd have seen these for yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You had 2 almost good counterarguments. Unfortunatelly, just almost...

That is also true for kids being taken in the cars by their parents, so the choice for them isn't voluntary, thus the analogy stands. Also when you live far from your workplace, you pretty much forced totravel by car,bus,etc.

it is the price of living in a society. Let's say you don't even travel by car, but one day a semi comes through your door and kills you. Price of living in a society and not out in the woods.

It is the same (or should be) with CP. No dead man killed again. If I prove it to you that more lifes are safed because executed people don't kill again versus the accidentally executed, than would you be for CP?

That is not true in every country, only in the fucked up US justice system. Also if we would use the executed people's organs, the gain by society would be well worthy te price. But here is an idea: Instead of starting illegal wars and saving money on that, we could use that money for perfecting the justice system. Sounds good?

Tell me again, what is the gain for society by keepig a young criminal locked up for 60 years????

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sure I did. Please promote one and I will kill your argument...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That should make us trying to perfect the system not throwing it away altogether. By the way I am not that fond of the jury system.

Same as above. Not in every country. Try perfecting the system. Also, justice can cost, that doesn't mean we should try to save money on it.

The prison system is also very costly. Are you advocating that we should stop imprisoning people to save money?

Completely stupid argument. The large number is indicating that we are not using the CP!!! Out of 2000 or so death penalty annually there are less than 100 executions!!!

try perfecting the system. So in coutries where there is only one ethnicity you don't have problem with CP?

Killed them all...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but you can play again....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I stated earlier that anti-CP people are either stupid (no good argument on their behalf) or sadist. I guess you belong to the sadist group. Is it because causing more suffering to the crimial is the goal? Because than we could just torture them before execution if so...

Tell me, why is it good for the society to keep a young criminal in jail for the next 60 years, when executing and harvesting his organs could save 10+ lifes???

Now if he is innocent, how would it feel to be imprisoned for 60 years for nothing? Of course the innocent argument is also good against imprisonment itself. We should just stop trying to do justice and turn prisons into Forgiveness Centers, as Draqon would like it....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The same well refuted stupid arguments, I am getting bored with you guys....

 

Syzygys , you answer of 'perfect the system' is fatally flawed; nothing is perfect.

My arguments hold, your counter is naive at best, diversionary, and in one place plain dishonest.

Please feel free to counter again, with valid arguments.

 

Killing people is less sadistic than incarceration? You are one sick puppy. OK, I can't reason with the unreasonable, I guess you just have to bow out of the debate because you lack empathy and the qualifications to be a member of a civilised society.

 

Wtf ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why don't you ask the prisoners themselves what they rather have as punishment ?

 

You almost make good points...almost

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:

(A) Parents consent on the kids behalf. Parents have all the rights to make decisions for kids, including what risks they may, may not, or will accept. That's why when little Billy goes on a field trip, his parents have to sign the permission slip. So the analogy fails. Kids in cars are there because the decision maker, their parents, have accepted the risk for them. The are other cases of "deemed" consent as well. If you've been shot and are unconscious, we as a society assume that you consent to the ambulance ride. That's why putting an unconscious person in an ambulance and driving away to the hospital is not "kidnapping."

(B) "Pretty much" forced to is not the same thing as "forced to" you can quit your job, sell your car and live on food stamps and welfare checks. You can always not live so far away too...that's what people did in the age before automobiles, they lived relatively closer to work. That people *choose* to live further away does not make their use of a car involuntary in the broader sense, by choosing to live far away and decising to keep a job that is far away you are also choosing to be committed to drive.

Yes, but again the reason we pay this price is that it is worth it. having semis on the road lowers the cost of goods that truckers transport and that, in turn, leaves you better off, there is no real debate on that point.

Killing Billy who turned to crime after his parents refused to sign any permission slips, may or may not leave anyone better off, that point is eminently debatable. What is clear is that Billy may be innocent, even if the chance is very small.

First, I am for capital punishment in the abstract, I am just opposed to bad argumentation. The reason that I support capital pubishment is *not* that it leaves us any safer, because it does not. A man locked away for life is not going to threaten society (he might threaten other criminals in his prison, but that doesn't bopther me). A dead man is not going to threaten society. Jail breaks are sufficiently rare that the two are indistiguishable from the standpoint of the risk they pose to me. I support capital punishment because there are a certain percentage of friends and family members of victims out there who *would* feel better knowing that revenge was had.

Some people say that revenge "never" makes the pain go away, but I think that misses the point. The pain of loss is still there, but there is also a new satisfaction, that partially offsets that pain for some people. It's like eating ice cream after your girfriend dumps you. You still feel sad about your girlfriend, but, hey, this ice cream is kind of good.

There are some who say that we shouldn't indulge revenge because it's a negative emotion, but I think that denies human nature—some of us are vengeful creatures. Why deny that reality? Is the value of a convicts life greater than the satiety that might come from the sense of vengeance fulfilled? By what calculus? It's easy to see why slightly happier law abiding people on the outside might be a net boon as compared to living criminals on the inside who will never be released.

The one argument that potentially works, to me, is that by eliminating state sanctioned revenge we may send a stronger message that revenge is "wrong" and reduce violent crime overall, as that message achieves greater penetration. I think a lot more study is needed to prove that proposition true, but it strikes me as potentially plausible.

Second, because I do not think the incarcerated are likely to kill again, I seriously doubt that you could prove that the incarcerated will kill more people than the inniocent that we would accidentally execute. Neither number is known. You may be able to estimate the number of people incarcerated murderers kill, but (a) those deaths would either be after very rare escapes or committed while in prison and so of other dangerous criminals and (b) the number of innocents executed is virtually unknown. Once someone is killed, people generally stop trying to prove them innocent, because it becomes pointless. I know that the Innocence Project has cleared a number of people though, so we can find conviction errors when we look for them.

The reason it's trrue in the U.S,. is that we allow people on death row every opportunity to prove their innocene you could "fix" the problem, but teh result would be that even more innocent people would be executed for crimed they did not commit. Granted that the costs of execution in places like China is low, but that's because they don't give a shit whether you did it or not. In places where they care, the costs of punishment increase. In the U.S. we care about such things and we *especially* care when itc comes to people on death row, so costs disproportionately riose for people on death row.

The organ idea is interesting, though one wonders whether you'd want the liuver of a man executed by lethal injection, poison gas or electrocution. You'd better limit that to those killed by hanging and firing squad, which is not many states.

There is no perfect justice system. You could devote a trillion dollars to the system and there would still be errors. The only change would be that there'd be errors and corruption, as people tried to get a piece of the pie. There are always two types of errors, alpha and beta, in a court system. Alpha risk is the possibility of an innocent person being convicted. Beta risk is the risk of a guily man being acquitted. There is no amount of money you can throw at the problem that will let you minimize both at the same time. You can by increasing one decrease the other, but it's very difficult to decrease them both simultaneously. Nominally, we claim that we only care about minimizing alpha risk, but in practice we are willing to tolerate a certain amount of aplha risk in our efforts to convict.

Tell me again, what is the gain for society by keepig a young criminal locked up for 60 years????

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[/QUOTE]

 

Halle Berry is perfect. There you go...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

First, there are things perfect. Second, even if some aren't that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to achieve it....

 

I can argue both ways, which side do you want me to be on? But painwise it is less sadistic....

Also it depends on the definition my dear....But please explain what so sadistic about death by injection???

 

Holly macaroni! You certainly write a lot compared that we actually agree!!!

Because murders in prison don't happen. Also read up on the oldest man executed in California. He ordered murders from prison...

But this is an interesting exercise, nevertheless. Of course the anti-CP side has to put a number first on the % or the absolute number of wrongly executed...

 

I would choose death if I had a choice of being executed or spending the rest of my life in prison.

 

Most people wouldn't.. and when the time to decide for you is there you may not either.

 

I would probably hang myself within the first year of a life sentence.

 

IF you were given the opportunity..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't that that that has to come first, by logical necessity. It seems to me that you should first nail down the number of people being killed by prisoners, if only because that number should be easier to ascertain. Either side can fairly claim "you go first." As a practical matter I presume anyone arguing for a change in law should tend to go first...which means you should answer first in states without capital punishment and death penalty opponents go first in states with capital punishment.

In any event a person opposed to the death penalty could argue that it is especially horrific to be convicted of a crime you didn't commit and then executed by the state, as opposed to simply being randomly murdered in the street. In the former case, you can lose freinds, respectability and even the love of those close to you in addition to your life. In that case, a comparison of the raw numbers might not even be a fair way to compare the two populations.

 

So why not the death penalty instead of life improsenment?:shrug:

Saves food and water and maintenance costs:shrug:
And less wastes to deal with

It's a matter of dealing punishment to the criminal, and it is better than life imprisonment to put fear into the criminal and to punish him.

Emotion is tied closely to morality, morality to law.

But criminals are evil scum. They deserve it.

 

Name something relevant that is.

 

How about living every day with the knowledge that at some point men are going to come and take you to be killed? That is psychological torture.

Whereas mere incarceration gives the perp time to reflect and mend their ways, and look forward to coming out of jail rehabilitated.