Death penalty is damn right

[Straybow]

Traianvs

Originally posted by GePap
So you think there is no rationale for punishment? I did not know you were so anti-rational. Makes sense though.

Did I say there was no rationale? The rationale is that crime must be punished, whether the criminal reforms or not is almost immaterial.

In fact, we go into the question with the assumption that the criminal does not reform. We keep records of when that person was arrested, on what charges, whether it ever went to trial, etc. That way we know something about the person's character in addition to convictions and prison sentences.

It has nothing to do with "stronger" systems or states. How do you even define that? Stronger in what way?

Greater internal stability, meaning that the rulers are secure in the continuation of the status quo. Simple enough.

So, when rulers are secure in the status quo the system can tolerate more crime, and that means we shouldn't punish criminals? We shouldn't be putting criminals on trial for murder, we should put society on trial for not tolerating murderers?

There is no sure standard of justice as there is no such thing as absolute justice. That does not mean I have none. It can see again why you can;t grasp this simple distinction.

In other words, your ideas are so uninformed that there is no purpose to listening to them?

As for not suporting the DP, its not out of "fear" od doing wrong. Its out of a desire for consistency and stability. So, the impulse is not fear related, but desire related.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of lesser minds, or something like that. If there is no particular standard of justice, why must justice then be consistent? Oh, wait, it is so that society can tolerate more murderers.

So you do fear. The question is, so what if an unreformed individual is let out.

You're not listening. I said reform is not the intent of punishment. That's why the DP is a perfectly valid form of punishment.

One, it is a logical falicy to state that if somoene is unreformed that they will invartiably succeed in committing murder again.

Short answer: US murder rate 2001 to 2004: 5.6 per 100k, or 0.0056%. Recidivist murderers: 1.2% (see below). Released murders therefore at least 200 times more likely to murder, assuming one murder per murderer.

Being able to predict which persons were hundreds of times more likely to murder, would you not want to be protected from them? Keep murderers in prison, or execute them. Simple.

2, I don;t care if they commit murder again. If they do, they will go to prison again. Simple.

So, if reform is the point of punishment, and you don't care whether they murder a second time, why bother punishing them? Why bother enforcing laws at all if you don't actually care about right (not murdering) and wrong (murder)?

This is far more common than execution of a wrongly convicted person. It happens thousands of times more frequently.

Lets hears it for unbacked assertions!

Total executions 1976-2004: 985. One anti-DP lobby can cite only one case out of 107 released from death row where all capital charges were dropped. Assuming the anti-DP extreme case of one third wrongfully convicted, that extrapolates to 3 people wrongfully executed.

According to DOJ, 1.2% of homicide convicts released from prison are arrested for homicide within 3 years of release. ~10,000 released per year = 120 arrested within three years.

They cite no dramatic changes in this figure over the long term. So, during 1976-2004 we have about 3000 recidivist murderers. So the problem is only 1000 times as bad, rather than thousands of times as bad. But my point stands.

Something is a crime based on the law of the land. Change laws, change crimes, change the meaning of justice. Hence, justice is ever changing. Even a moral dinasour like yourself would blanche as stonning an adultress, yet this is exactly what your creator deity tells you to do. Imagine how much criminality you have hjelped spawn...shame on you, you criminal lover.

Ah, yes, let's troll off the topic (onto a topic you apparently know even less about) since you have nothing concrete to make an argument. But then you've already said you don't care if released murderers commit murder again, so... nevermind, why did I even bother to refute anything you post?

[GePap]

Ah, yes, let's troll off the topic (onto a topic you apparently know even less about) since you have nothing concrete to make an argument. But then you've already said you don't care if released murderers commit murder again, so... nevermind, why did I even bother to refute anything you post?

When have you ever refuted anything I have posted?

As for recidivist murderers, wow, 1.2% within 3 years. HUGE. Conversely, 98.8% of murderers released don't kill anyone again within the next 3 years. Obviously, the figures for all released murderers for the rest of their lifetimes would be the figure to search, thought I doubt anyone keeps that number.

You therefore claim the DP could have saved those 3000 lives. Lets see where the problem starts: There seems to be no way of predicting which of the released murders would be the ones to committ murder again. The only solution would be to sentence all people guilty of homicide to death, but then, by your numbers, the number of people dead at the end would be higher if all people accused of homicide were themselves executed.

Given we are incapable to knowing who might kill again, even if the general risk is higher than the general population (Duh), at the end of the day my view leads to more human beings being alive. Unless you are a human extinctionist like General Ludd, seems my way is the humane way. I guess of course that you view some human lives as less worthy than others. Not that I am shocked you might hold such a view.

And as ffor punishment- to state the question in a way maybe you will understand: why should crime be punished? Ie. the meaning and purpose of punishment. That was what I say you seem incapable of even enunciating. Are your beliefs so defunct you can;t even describe why you have them?

[chequita guevara]

It's funny how all the "Christians™" support state murder, despite the commandment from their supposed founder to turn the other cheek.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
So whats the point in keeping them alive? That costs pointlessly.

Not being responsible for killing someone is worth far more than the cost of keeping someone alive in prison for life.

[SlowwHand]

It says turn the other cheek, but it leaves open what happens after the other cheek is slapped.
And it's punishment, not vengeance, before you even bring it up. If you're going to go down that path, out go all laws and rules of conduct.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It says turn the other cheek, but it leaves open what happens after the other cheek is slapped.

So you can do anything you want as long as it is not explicitely stated that it's against God's law in the Bible?

[SlowwHand]

Do you have a for instance in mind?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Do you have a for instance in mind?

Why do you have to think ahead? Can't you answer?

[SlowwHand]

You can't even think of a question. I'm supposed to guess the answer?
In an effort to do just that, the Bible pretty well covers any basic issues. Does it say torture is ok, as long as it doesn't cause death? No, but I think by now the reader should know the intent of meaning.

Jesus went postal on the taxmen, if you'll remember.


Any better answer, you'll need to be getting involved a little.

[DinoDoc]

Where in the Bible does Jesus speak out against the death penalty (a common practice more freely given out in his time)? If we are seriously going to use that as an arguement anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Jesus went postal on the taxmen, if you'll remember.

You mean the merchants? So that means he supports the death penalty?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Where in the Bible does Jesus speak out against the death penalty (a common practice more freely given out in his time)? If we are seriously going to use that as an arguement anyway.

He said, "He without sin cast the first stone." I think that's pretty clear.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
He said, "He without sin cast the first stone." I think that's pretty clear.

It might be if either a) he had actually challeneged the law being used at the time he saved the woman or b) the passage you refer to wasn't a forgery not written by the author(s) of the Gospel of John.

[SlowwHand]

You're the one advocating then a society unencumbered by rules, laws. Cast the first stone isn't in reference to the Commandments. It's like, Don't bug this guy over a pink shirt, just because you don't like it.

Anarchy, that's called.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Where in the Bible does Jesus speak out against the death penalty (a common practice more freely given out in his time)? If we are seriously going to use that as an arguement anyway.

Its doesn't.

The more pressing question is what did Jesus say to invalidate the laws in the Bible, because if people trully believed in the commandments and laws from God, we would be killing a lot more people than we are.

After all, I see our culture failing to kill adulterers, as well as children who disrespect their parents.