Announcement

**Ben Kenobi** · March 21, 2003, 19:03

How do you say "a communist's viewpoints are meaningless"?

Slowwhand: whatabout a Christian?

What about rehabilitation, or do you believe everyone guilty of murder will remain a murderer for the rest of their lives?

Does the death penalty in Texas reduce violent crime?

**korn469** · March 21, 2003, 19:22

It happens frequently in Texas

i know, just being sarcastic, i don't trust anybody in law enforcement half as far as i can throw them

anyways

the purpose of the criminal justice system is to

punish: which the death penalty does, except the punishment is irreversible, so any faulty convictions are just as much of a tragedy as the crimes that spawned it

rehabilitate: the death penalty doesn't even pretend to do this

deter: nope

In adjacent states – one with the death penalty and the other without it – the state that practices the death penalty does not always show a consistently lower rate of criminal homicide. For example, between l990 and l994, the homicide rates in Wisconsin and Iowa (non-death-penalty states) were half the rates of their neighbor, Illinois – which restored the death penalty in l973, and by 1994 had sentenced 223 persons to death and carried out two executions.7

Page not found | American Civil Liberties Union

http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9082&c=17#deterrent

prevent crimes by the same criminals: it isn't any better than life behind bars

For the most part, though, guards are succeeding in keeping prisons secure. True, in 1997 some 5,380 inmates escaped from state and federal prisons in the US. But that represented only 0.5 percent of the prison population and was down from the 1.5 percent escape rate in the 1980s. Then, as now, the escapes were overwhelmingly "walkaways" from low-security facilities.

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1998/12/03/p2s1.htm

Az · March 21, 2003, 19:28

DNA evidence can be contaminated, and it is never 100% accurate.

contaminated by the accused?

**Guynemer** · March 22, 2003, 00:46

Interesting Sloww. So you chose option 3. I'd hoped that you at least had enough sense to go with option 2. Admit that your true reason for supporting the DP is limited to "'cuz they needed killing," and not any notion of escape or prison violence. At least that is an argument that can't be refuted.

You provided absolutely zero evidence for your claims, and only ranted and raving about your links that ranged from the completely irrelevant to the hopelessly biased.

And so, I have but one final question.

Who is your rhetorical daddy?

You lose, cowboy.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 22, 2003, 03:40

What about rehabilitation, or do you believe everyone guilty of murder will remain a murderer for the rest of their lives?

What about it? You murder someone viciously and premeditated, proved with DNA and beyond the shadow of a doubt, then you should be executed. Rehabilitation is only one of the four reasons for punishment. The others are deterrance, incapacitation, and retribution. The death penalty covers all of those three.

In adjacent states – one with the death penalty and the other without it – the state that practices the death penalty does not always show a consistently lower rate of criminal homicide. For example, between l990 and l994, the homicide rates in Wisconsin and Iowa (non-death-penalty states) were half the rates of their neighbor, Illinois – which restored the death penalty in l973, and by 1994 had sentenced 223 persons to death and carried out two executions.7

Could it be they are asking the wrong question? They compared the numbers of 1990-94. What about the murder rates of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois BEFORE 1973? And these stats are definetly clouded by the fact that Illinois has Chicago in it. Wisconsin and Iowa have no city even close to that size. Why don't we compare the murder rate in New York and Illinois (NY doesn't have the death penalty, IIRC).

Like the old saying goes: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

**Ramo** · March 22, 2003, 05:25

And it's just as amazing to me that some would coddle murderers.

Nah, I have no sympathy for the state.

Rehabilitation is only one of the four reasons for punishment. The others are deterrance, incapacitation, and retribution. The death penalty covers all of those three.

1. Retribution is an immoral use of force. I don't see how it can possibly be justified. At all. Would you mind explaining?
2. The death penalty obviously doesn't deter crime any better than life in prison. We just had this conversation.
3. Life in prison can prevent a person from harming others just as well as the death penalty can. OTOH, if you kill him, you guarantee that another person dies.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 22, 2003, 05:35

Retribution is an immoral use of force. I don't see how it can possibly be justified. At all. Would you mind explaining?

What is there to explain? I don't care about your morality. I don't share it at all. IMO, retribution, through the authority of the soverign (which is the state here), is justified. In short, I believe retribution is moral (about as moral as rehabilitation actually).

When someone kills someone while drunk and behind the whell of a car, I WANT them to spend their life in jail. This is retribution (and includes a lot of deterrance), but I feel they deserved it.

The death penalty obviously doesn't deter crime any better than life in prison. We just had this conversation.

Yes, and I think I won it

.

Life in prison can prevent a person from harming others just as well as the death penalty can. OTOH, if you kill him, you guarantee that another person dies.

The 'other' person deserved to die because of his crimes. Btw, what do you do if the killer shows that he may murder while in prision?

**Kramerman** · March 22, 2003, 05:41

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It happens frequently in Texas.

It happens everywhere. It is the fault of the justice system. unfortunately, its the best we can do.

**Ramo** · March 22, 2003, 05:42

What is there to explain? I don't care about your morality. I don't share it at all. IMO, retribution, through the authority of the soverign (which is the state here), is justified. In short, I believe retribution is moral (about as moral as rehabilitation actually)

[/quote]

Yes, which is why I'm asking why you believe retribution is moral...

Yes, and I think I won it .

I think you got *****-slapped.

[quote]The 'other' person deserved to die because of his crimes.[/uote]

You already brought up retribution.

I was referring to your claim of incapacitance alone.

Btw, what do you do if the killer shows that he may murder while in prision?

Provide psychological counseling. Restrain him if necessary.

**Kramerman** · March 22, 2003, 05:44

quote:
In adjacent states – one with the death penalty and the other without it – the state that practices the death penalty does not always show a consistently lower rate of criminal homicide. For example, between l990 and l994, the homicide rates in Wisconsin and Iowa (non-death-penalty states) were half the rates of their neighbor, Illinois – which restored the death penalty in l973, and by 1994 had sentenced 223 persons to death and carried out two executions.7

Could it be they are asking the wrong question? They compared the numbers of 1990-94. What about the murder rates of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois BEFORE 1973? And these stats are definetly clouded by the fact that Illinois has Chicago in it. Wisconsin and Iowa have no city even close to that size. Why don't we compare the murder rate in New York and Illinois (NY doesn't have the death penalty, IIRC).

Like the old saying goes: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

gah! you got to it before i could

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 22, 2003, 05:47

Yes, which is why I'm asking why you believe retribution is moral...

Because people should face the consequences of their actions. If they kill someone, then they should be behind bars for a lengthy time, because they deserve it. They did the act, the consequence is you go away for a while.

And secondly, you can't let people walk away scot free for doing something which is considered wrong by the society. If you do something wrong, you should be put away, because, once again, you have to be responsible for your actions.

**Ramo** · March 22, 2003, 05:50

You didn't answer my question. You just restated what retribution is.

Az · March 22, 2003, 05:51

Yes, which is why I'm asking why you believe retribution is moral...

"Retribution" is the wrong word. Punishment is re-education of the individual, keeping him away from society, as well as deterring potential criminals.

**Ramo** · March 22, 2003, 05:52

No, Imran specifically used retribution: "Rehabilitation is only one of the four reasons for punishment. The others are deterrance, incapacitation, and retribution. The death penalty covers all of those three."

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 22, 2003, 05:56

You didn't answer my question.

Yes I did. You asked why I think it is moral. I said because it makes people face the consequences of their actions. It makes people responsible for their actions. THAT is why I think it is moral.

And Azazel, retribution is the correct word. It is one of the four reasons.

Announcement

Texas Executes 300th Inmate

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment