Still believe in the death Penalty?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

You completely miss the point, it's not eye for an eye, it's to remove a problem from society. As long as there is such as thing as a murderer reoffending ... AND you think that risk needs to be removed from society then this is the best way to do it.

No you missed the point. Calgaryborn has been talking all about what would be the best compensation for taking someone elses life and he even quoted the eye for eye statement.

In the US, people are removed from society. They infact do get LIFE in prison. 100, 200, 1000 years in jail. I would disagree that killing another human being is the best way to solve this problem.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Who is receiving compensation? Who benefits?

Compensation implies, to me anyway, that someone is paying for something. In this case, they are paying for the life they took by giving up their own life. Who receives this payment?

Well that's pretty obvious isn't it? Society is being compensated for the crime against it. Society through its government is also the one doing the collecting.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well that's pretty obvious isn't it? Society is being compensated for the crime against it. Society through its government is also the one doing the collecting.

Society is NOT receiving compensation, only the people that want and advocate the death of the person are receiving such proceived compensation.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

No you missed the point. Calgaryborn has been talking all about what would be the best compensation for taking someone elses life and he even quoted the eye for eye statement.

In the US, people are removed from society. They infact do get LIFE in prison. 100, 200, 1000 years in jail. I would disagree that killing another human being is the best way to solve this problem.

Ya I read further back and see you were just referring to him ... and eye for an eye is a bad arguement.

However for your second paragraph: Ever heard of inmates escaping or guards getting killed? Both happen. If there is no death penalty then you know that it is a matter of time before an inmate escapes and reoffends and a guard is killed.

See to me it's simply a choice. Which life is more important. It's not very nice, but sometimes things in reality aren't nice. And if someone's reaction to the choice is to say well both are important that is naive and leaving the consequences of the naivity for someone else to worry about ... like the family of the guard who will inevitably be killed.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

So who's more important? the murderer or the tax paying honest living prison guard? Basically you have to pick.

Anything other than picking is naive ... as long as one prison guard is at risk of being killed it's a choice. If you don't think it's a choice then you are voting for the murderer.

wow... seriously? You're actually going to create a false dichotomy here between choosing the life of an innocent person and the life of a murderer?

I support your right to believe the death penalty is ok. But I'm not going to debate this when you're presenting such completely and totally irrational arguments as that.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

And how many would still be dead even if they were sentenced to death? It takes many years to reach that final reality and as such, there may have been no difference in the number of dead guards.

In fact, one could argue that there may be more dead guards if we sentence more people to death. Really, what do they have to lose if the prisoner has no hope left in life?

No idea what you are getting at. The poster stated that sentencing a person to life in prison meant they would no longer be allowed to kill...thats simply untrue.

Read this again.

Officer Clutts died in an unprovoked, vicious assault when stabbed approximately 40 times with a homemade knife by inmate Thomas Silverstein. At the time, Silverstein was being supervised by three correctional officers. Silverstein had already murdered three inmates while in federal custody, for which he received three life sentences.

So again...had he been executed, at least 3 people would still be breathing.

Where is the deterrent for him to stop killing others? Hey lets give him one MORE life sentence, that will really deter him from doing anything else....right?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by fatso

wow... seriously? You're actually going to create a false dichotomy here between choosing the life of an innocent person and the life of a murderer?

I support your right to believe the death penalty is ok. But I'm not going to debate this when you're presenting such completely and totally irrational arguments as that.

You think a murderer has never re offended? Ever?

See it's literally as simple as this to me:

In Transplants example in post 89, if you are pro death penalty 3 more people are living. if you are against, 3 are dead. Just simple cause and effect relationship playing out. And most people who are against the death penalty try to make a very simple relationship much more complicated that it needs to be. Feeling they took the high road but leaving a mess behind them for society to clean up. I'd love to hear you sit down with the family of the officer and explain why you know the death penalty is just wrong.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No idea what you are getting at. The poster stated that sentencing a person to life in prison meant they would no longer be allowed to kill...thats simply untrue.

Read this again.



So again...had he been executed, at least 3 people would still be breathing.

Where is the deterrent for him to stop killing others? Hey lets give him one MORE life sentence, that will really deter him from doing anything else....right?

Transplant, what I am saying is that it can take 15-20 years to go through the death penalty process. Even if that one dude that you are talking about was sentenced to death. He still could have killed those guards.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Uh...no it really isnt.

One way to guarentee that a convicted murderer does not re-offend is to end their life.

Read the statistics.

What's flawed?

In the initial post you provided no information regarding the circumstances surrounding the correctional officers deaths. Even given some of these circumstances, there is no way of knowing whether or not eliminating certain prisoners via capital punishment would have prevented these officers being killed. Perhaps they were targeted by other inmates and the murderers were selected assassins, perhaps they were killed in large confrontations and some one else would have been the killer, perhaps, had these men been put to death, these officers would have been off-duty and gotten run-over by a truck.

Compensation is not vengeance. Compensation is justice:

That is such a profoundly different way of looking at the world from mine that I don't think I can formulate an answer for it, other than perhaps this:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:38-39.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

You think a murderer has never re offended? Ever?

Have you read my posts? Of course it's possible. And every murderer had a time when he didn't have a criminal record whatsoever. What's your point?

If you're asking me if I want harsher sentences, absolutely. Lock the suckers up and throw away the key. Keep working to lessen re-offending rates. Etc., etc. I just don't think state-sponsored killing is the way to go. What's next? Genetic profiling of potential killers and offing them before they get the notion to off other people?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well that's pretty obvious isn't it? Society is being compensated for the crime against it. Society through its government is also the one doing the collecting.

What has society collected? Souls? Peace of mind? Is the payment simply a hope for vengeance satisfied?

Assuming this guy would have been locked up for the rest of his life had he not been poisoned to death, what do the people of Georgia get out of his execution? Do they feel better? Do they say "ahh, that's better, he's paid us back for what he did"?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by fatso

except, not every convicted murderer kills prison guards or innocent people again do they? How do you know which ones will and which ones won't? Isn't it really a case, then, of killing all convicted murderers to ensure no prison guards or innocent people die?

Is it not pretty obvious that every case is individual and should be dealt with as such...you know....like they do now?

Driveway stated there is NO PURPOSE to the death penalty.....and unless innocent victims are nothing, then that statement is clearly and obviously wrong.

Again...more law enforcement officers have been killed this year than inmates have been executed....so its not like there are guys being fried everyday or anything. One thing is definate...those that have been executed will never re-offend, and those officers killed will never be seen by their loved ones agian.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

You think a murderer has never re offended? Ever?

See it's literally as simple as this to me:

In Transplants example in post 89, if you are pro death penalty 3 more people are living. if you are against, 3 are dead. Just simple cause and effect relationship playing out. And most people who are against the death penalty try to make a very simple relationship much more complicated that it needs to be. Feeling they took the high road but leaving a mess behind them for society to clean up while they feel like they are being a good person. I'd love to hear you sit down with the family of the officer and explain why you know the death penalty is just wrong.

You've totally lost it now. I'm supposed to explain to the victims why they're loved one is dead? Because I believe the death penalty is wrong for society?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Transplant, what I am saying is that it can take 15-20 years to go through the death penalty process. Even if that one dude that you are talking about was sentenced to death. He still could have killed those guards.

Sure...but if he is executed tomorrow i can guarentee he will never do it again. Can you guarentee he wont if he isnt executed? Clearly not since he has a history of doing so. Again, the death penalty does serve a purpose and that is simply inarguable.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You know what makes a messed up world. This premise that we should opperate in this eye for eye idea. That really has to be one of the worst ideas ever. It does nothing to solve problems and only furthers the chain if hate and resentment (sp?).

Osborne is no longer a problem.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

What if one of the family members decided that he will kill Osborne for killing his family member? Is the family member immune from any culpability? Because by your logic, Osborne has given up his right to live because he took someone elses life.

Nope that is blind vengeance. They don't have the authority to take a life. They are not the law.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

What about a drunk driver? He kills someone or a whole family. He knew what the possible consequences where when he decided to drive drunk. Is his life forfeit?

Depends on what you view his crime to be. Was it accidental death through gross neglect or willful homicide? I've heard arguments for both.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by fatso

You've totally lost it now. I'm supposed to explain to the victims why they're loved one is dead? Because I believe the death penalty is wrong for society?

yep, the consequence of your belief would cause the death.

See it's just that little piece of reality that's hard to deal with (and explains why you don't address it and simply suggest you 'can't aruge with me')

To me the biggest difference between the two sides is the connection, or understanding of cause and effect.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Driveway stated there is NO PURPOSE to the death penalty.....and unless innocent victims are nothing, then that statement is clearly and obviously wrong.

There is no purpose to the death penalty that cannot be equally met by other methods which do not involve murder. Solitary confinement, counseling, prisoner rehabilitation programs, etc. etc.

That these programs are under-funded and therefore currently ineffective is not an acceptable argument in favour of the death penalty because it reduces human life to economic considerations.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Is it not pretty obvious that every case is individual and should be dealt with as such...you know....like they do now?

Driveway stated there is NO PURPOSE to the death penalty.....and unless innocent victims are nothing, then that statement is clearly and obviously wrong.

Again...more law enforcement officers have been killed this year than inmates have been executed....so its not like there are guys being fried everyday or anything. One thing is definate...those that have been executed will never re-offend, and those officers killed will never be seen by their loved ones agian.

I see. I wrongly assumed you weren't arguing the blatantly obvious.

Of course there are instances where it's going to look like the death penalty is the right way to go. And of course, with hindsight, you can make an argument for anything. I cited Dahmer, earlier, as a perfect example of a situations that seems to warrant the death penalty. That doesn't mean as a policy choice or as a principle, it's necessarily the way to go. The positives of having the death penalty, such as the situation you've cited, simply don't outweigh the negatives imo, as sad as it is to say.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

yep, the consequence of your belief would cause the death.

See it's just that little piece of reality that's hard to deal with (and explains why you don't address it and simply suggest you 'can't aruge with me')

To me the biggest difference between the two sides is the connection, or understanding of cause and effect.

no Flames in 07, the reason I can't argue with you is because you're creating outlandish propositions. I'm not an elected official, and I'm not a judge or politician. Why is it my responsibility as Joe Citizen to explain something the population wants/doesn't want. I can only be accountable for my vote.

But, if you go back over and read my posts, I think I've explained over and over why I don't think the death penalty is a good idea. Sure there are instances that seem to beg for it, as I myself noted.

But, for what it's worth, having to explain to the family of those guards - as awful as it would be - would probably be easier than having to explain to the family of an innocent man wrongly killed because the system 'made a mistake'.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What has society collected? Souls? Peace of mind? Is the payment simply a hope for vengeance satisfied?

Assuming this guy would have been locked up for the rest of his life had he not been poisoned to death, what do the people of Georgia get out of his execution? Do they feel better? Do they say "ahh, that's better, he's paid us back for what he did"?

I would say this fellow received a fair penalty for his crimes. You can argue that a life is too much to pay for taking a life but, I will simply have to keep questioning your arithmetic.