Silly Texans

[SlowwHand]

I don't think they have yet, but they will.
A couple of years ago 4 escaped and killed an officer..I believe in a Walmart parking lot.
Only got 3 back. The 4th dusted himself.

[Max Webster]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
My take: it's irrelevent. Either way, there will be very little impact on society. The cost of imprisoning those who would be killed is trivial and the deterrent isn't important, especially given the fact that violent crime is way down. On the other hand, I honestly don't care if we kill some murderers and even if we occasionally kill an innocent.

Unless of course your one of the innocents and then holy moly your self centered little self would scream a whole different tune.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, I'd be pretty pissed if I were being imprisoned for life, too. Overall there are many more pressing issues, and very few less pressing issues.

[SlowwHand]

Pissed at who? Yourself for being an idiot?

[Dinner]

If he's smart he'll go to Mexico and from there make his way to Brazil. Brazil won't extridite a death row inmate. Most of Latin America isn't big on passports either so crousing at locations other then offical border control points should be very easy.

[SlowwHand]

The penalty for escape. Know what it is?
I may be wrong. Once in a blue moon, I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure the penalty is 5 years added on to the sentence.
Oh my. That's going to give them something to consider, isn't it?
Not only are they doing life, but they have to do 5 years?
Wow. I know that would stop me from attempting escape.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Pissed at who? Yourself for being an idiot?

Eh, I think we're talking about a false conviction, in which case it wouldn't really be appropriate to blame me...

[SlowwHand]

I'm talking to a bunch of bandits. How can I expect to win?

[RGBVideo]

Debating death penalty again...

Either way, there will be very little impact on society. The cost of imprisoning those who would be killed is trivial and the deterrent isn't important, especially given the fact that violent crime is way down. On the other hand, I honestly don't care if we kill some murderers and even if we occasionally kill an innocent.

Putting the good of the state over the good of an invididual, regardless of justice being served towards the invididual? Never knew you were fascist, Kuci.

Originally posted by Odin
But the chance is still there, and will always be there, therfore the DP will allways be immoral since you can get the same amount of safety with a life setence instead.

This is exactly the same BS what Kassiopeia used to answer me with when we had a death penalty argument a while back. The BS part of the logic is that the chance of inmate escaping (yes, even from a maximum security prison) always exists, too; and and in cases like this the chance of an inmate escaping and killing another innocent victim is far greater than the chance of an executed inmate being innocent.

It's an ad hoc theory, created by liberal humanist academics with too little work and too much time who have tried to apply mathematical theory into a political issue without understanding neither.

[Kuciwalker]

Putting the good of the state over the good of an invididual, regardless of justice being served towards the invididual? Never knew you were fascist, Kuci.

Society, not the state. Justice is served fine. I figure decent economic policy would do a hell of a lot more good than eliminating some relatively tiny number of deaths of people under false convictions.

[RGBVideo]

Society, not the state.

why do I even bother...

[Kuciwalker]

why do I even bother...

There's a rather large difference. I don't care about the state; ensure society holds the proper mores and the form of the state is almost irrelevent.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
There's a rather large difference.

Yes, if you start defining them in a PoliSci classroom. In this context, there is no difference whatsoever.

"Killing invididuals to ensure that the society is marginally safer from murderers" means exactly the same thing as "killing invididuals to ensure that the state is marginally safer from murderers". Eliminating invididuals, evil or good, to ensure collective safety.

[Threadjack alert]
The thing is: you constantly, in all debates, clung into classroom definitions because you always want to show off that you know the differences between them, never mind if they're irrelevant in the particular case debated. That's the reason you're never taken seriously: you act like an insecure kid who wants to ensure the audience that everybody knows he's the biggest bookworm around.
[/Threadjack alert]

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, if you start defining them in a PoliSci classroom. In this context, there is no difference whatsoever.

"Killing invididuals to ensure that the society is marginally safer from murderers" means exactly the same thing as "killing invididuals to ensure that the state is marginally safer from murderers". Eliminating invididuals, evil or good, to ensure collective safety.

You missed my point. I'm not advocating killing them for safety reasons; I think it will have a minimal effect at most. I just don't see it as something inherently immoral and I don't see it as important enought to give any priority.

[RGBVideo]

nm