• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Death Penalty

Suddenly said:
1. The idea that a life without parole sentence is reversible in a way a death sentence is not seems facetious without there being an actual mechanism to actively review cases as to matters of fact. Without that, it is almost entirely an emotional balm for those that want to be wishy-washy about taking a life away. Celebrating the rare cases where by chance a wrongful conviction is overturned that wouldn't have been if the person was executed is akin to perseverance porn. What should be shocking tragedy and evidence of systemic failure gets reported in a positive "never give up hope" type light in a way that is totally counterproductive.
Click to expand...

You admit yourself that wrongful convictions do get overturned, the fact that this happened at all is justification for saying wrongful they can be overturned and mitigated when there is no death penalty.

More can and should be done but lack of perfection isn't an argument against improving.

Suddenly said:
That it is cheaper to lock someone away for life is evidence of a broken system more than an argument against the death penalty.
Click to expand...

What's broken is the fact that the death penalty exists and to even reduce the harm that causes is really expensive

Suddenly said:
3. Life in prison with no parole is better because it is the worse punishment. It's Democratic politics in a nutshell. They can't just come out and be against the death penalty based on cruelty because they've totally capitulated as to whether being cruel is a virtue and are more arguing about the optics of cruelty.
Click to expand...


It seems that you are trying to suggest that people can't be against the death penalty if they are not against the the inherent cruelty of it, but you don't get to tell other people what their positions should be.

For the worst of the worst offenders, if they truly are guilty, I don't care one way or another if they suffer nor do I care about the optics of that suffering. If the system could guarantee with absolute certainty that no innocent people were included I'd be fine with them getting the death penalty or not, provided society is adequately protected from them. It's not executing people I'm against it's executing people who don't deserve it, unfortunately we will never be able to compeltely untangle the two.
 
Warp12 said:
So, do you think McVeigh should not have been executed?
.....
Click to expand...

You're actually touching on another deficiency in the death penalty process: The necessity to determine that any particular murderer among thousands deserves the death penalty. Was the murder planned far enough ahead? Did the victim suffer enough? Was their family prominent enough? Etc., etc. And in the case of a political murderer like McVeigh, killing him makes him a martyr in the eyes of others who support his cause. Note that McVeigh's co-conspirator Terry Nichols was sentenced to life in prison without parole at supermax Florence. I don't see how we would be better off if Nichols was killed, or how we would be worse off if McVeigh was in the same place.

You have refused to explain why you think we would be better off if we killed more criminals, or how life is better in the states that impose the death penalty than in the ones that don't.
 
sackett said:
But I wonder: If it was just the fan and the condemned man, alone and bare handed in some quiet place, how courageous would our volunteer executioner be?
Click to expand...

The good old, "You can't beat the murderer in a fist fight, I bet ya!" argument. :rolleyes:
 
Warp12 said:
Hey, I'm not trying to interrupt this liberal stroke-fest. It is Valentines Day, after all. A lot of you have probably sent sympathy cards to the McVeigh estate. Let us mourn his passing, in unison.
Click to expand...

Because when you have no argument, demonising your opponents is always a classy move, right?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because when you have no argument, demonising your opponents is always a classy move, right?

Dave
Click to expand...

Apparently you haven't been following the thread. If being demonized by your opponents indicates victory, I won a couple of pages ago.
 
Bob001 said:
I don't see how we would be better off if Nichols was killed, or how we would be worse off if McVeigh was in the same place.

You have refused to explain why you think we would be better off if we killed more criminals, or how life is better in the states that impose the death penalty than in the ones that don't.
Click to expand...

We would be better off if both were executed. And as promptly as McVeigh. Just from a resource and expense standpoint, alone. Society does not need to fund the continued existence of such creatures.

You have not demonstrated how society would be better off if we did not kill these criminals. Even on the basis of resources and expense, these particular individuals serve no purpose other than as a burden.

"How life is better in the states with the death penalty". Lame. Quite frankly, if we had set McVeigh free, it would not likely affect my life in any way. Maybe we should have done that. Think of the money it would have saved.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
We would be better off if both were executed. And as promptly as McVeigh. Just from a resource and expense standpoint, alone. Society does not need to fund the continued existence of such creatures.
Click to expand...
And there you have it. Dehumanisation. They are not people, they are creatures. Creatures don't have rights. Creatures can be killed without guilt. Creatures don't deserve compassion, or pity. They're just creatures. Kill them.
 
Warp12 said:
Apparently you haven't been following the thread. If being demonized by your opponents indicates victory, I won a couple of pages ago.
Click to expand...

And the final move: declare victory without even having offered an argument.

Just to remind everyone that you haven't even started playing the game you claim to have won, we're all still waiting for your arguments in favour of the death penalty.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
And the final move: declare victory without even having offered an argument.

Just to remind everyone that you haven't even started playing the game you claim to have won, we're all still waiting for your arguments in favour of the death penalty.

Dave
Click to expand...

Revisionist history, justifying personal attacks. That is one way to cleanse your soul, I suppose.
 
The Don said:
Those arguments in favour of the death penalty, will we be seeing them any time soon ?
Click to expand...

That is not the default. Nobody has provided a compelling reason that these murderers should be allowed to live.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
That is not the default. Nobody has provided a compelling reason that these murderers should be allowed to live.
Click to expand...

There is no reason why the death penalty should be a default, for murder or anything else. You need to explain why it is necessary to kill somebody if there are alternatives.
 
Elaedith said:
There is no reason why the death penalty should be a default, for murder or anything else. You need to explain why it is necessary to kill somebody if there are alternatives.
Click to expand...

Nope. Eye for an eye.That is the default.
 
Warp12 said:
The good old, "You can't beat the murderer in a fist fight, I bet ya!" argument. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Is that an old argument? Maybe, but I'm plenty old and I've never heard it.

Is it a good argument? Yes, pretty good, for calling out chicken ****.

I think one of the more compelling points against the death penalty is that it's cowardly. Another poster has already likened it to mob action. I think it's worse than that, because it's an act committed by government, all nice and safely legal. Even partially civilized people can do better than that.
 
Warp12 said:
Nope. Eye for an eye.That is the default.
Click to expand...
That's your reason for supporting the DP?


Eye for an eye
"An eye for an eye" is a commandment found in Exodus 21:23–27 expressing the principle of reciprocal justice measure for measure...

Judaism

The Talmud discusses the concept of justice as measure-for-measure retribution in the context of divinely implemented justice. Regarding reciprocal justice by court, however, the Torah states that punishments serve to remove dangerous elements from society ("…and you shall eliminate the evil from your midst") and to deter potential criminals from violating the law ("And the rest shall hear and be daunted, and they shall no longer commit anything like this evil deed in your midst"). Additionally, reciprocal justice in tort cases serves to compensate the victim (see above).

The ideal of vengeance for the sake of assuaging the distress of the victim plays no role in the Torah's conception of court justice, as victims are cautioned against even hating or bearing a grudge against those who have harmed them...

Christianity

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus urges his followers to turn the other cheek:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
— Matthew 5:38–39 English Standard Version
Click to expand...

I know you are not a Christian, but I didn't realize you were a follower of the Old Testament. Does this mean you believe in their God, or do you just like the barbarism?
 
sackett said:
Is that an old argument? Maybe, but I'm plenty old and I've never heard it.

Is it a good argument? Yes, pretty good, for calling out chicken ****.

I think one of the more compelling points against the death penalty is that it's cowardly. Another poster has already likened it to mob action. I think it's worse than that, because it's an act committed by government, all nice and safely legal. Even partially civilized people can do better than that.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are running off about nothing. And also, you might get your ass kicked by those you are attacking. You have no foundation.

Who is really cowardly, here?
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Try not to make your trolling quite so obvious.
Click to expand...

Huh? Obviously you haven't followed this thread. Calling people "trolls" is for the weak-minded...those who present no valid debate, imo.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
That is not the default. Nobody has provided a compelling reason that these murderers should be allowed to live.
Click to expand...

"These murderers? Now we're getting at it. Thousands of people are murdered every year (21,570 in 2020). Only a tiny percentage in a minority of states result in convictions and death sentences. Your position is that we should be executing far more people? Thousands? Why? How is that good for society? And how many wrongful convictions and killings would you consider tolerable?
https://www.statista.com/statistics...gent-manslaughter-cases-in-the-us-since-1990/
https://eji.org/issues/wrongful-convictions/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom