Still believe in the death Penalty?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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

Wrongo! The lack of a death penalty does not cause murder. This is a logical fallacy called the Fallacy of False Cause, also called a non sequitur (latin for "It does not follow").

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by driveway

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.

Counseling a 4 time convicted murderer huh? Rehabbing him? OK then.

There has to be economic considerations alright...for the victims families as they may have lost that persons ability to you know...pay mortages, send their children to university....silly stuff like that...which was taken away from them by the guy you now want to spend money on in rehabilitation.


The economic considerations of making convicted murderers feel better about themselves so they dont re-offend in prison whilst serving their life out behind bars would tend to come in a long long way down the list in my order of priorities.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by fatso

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'.

well for clarity I think it should be an option to consider in extreme examples such as repeat offenders or extreme circumstances, similar to the process that exists in the US (that was previously lumped in with North Korea).

You are truely accountable for your vote though. You are really just sluffing off the reality that your vote would cause on somebody else. That's the thing, in a democracy there is responsibility behind a vote. You are right you'd never have to talk to that family, but someone else will, and then that family will have to deal with an innocent death. So you get to escape the reality that your vote leaves behind.

People who are against the death penalty find it easy to do so because they don't have to connect with the reality it causes.

And the proposition itself is outlandish, but the cause and effect relationship isn't. And it's that relationship that people with your viewpoint don't like to deal with.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by driveway

Wrongo! The lack of a death penalty does not cause murder. This is a logical fallacy called the Fallacy of False Cause, also called a non sequitur (latin for "It does not follow").

It's not enough to just say something doesn't make sense.

again back to post #89 if that person was subject to capital punishment the odds of 3 more dead people is zero.

If there is not capital penalty the odds of 3 more dead people is greater than zero. Simple as that.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Counseling a 4 time convicted murderer huh? Rehabbing him? OK then.

I also listed the possibility of solitary confinement. I have zero qualms about tying a convicted murderer up and throwing them in a hole for the rest of their natural life.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

again back to post #89 if that person was subject to capital punishment the odds of 3 more dead people is zero.

That's not true. Calculating what would or would not happen if x is done in the past is an impossible task. It's like asking whether or not WWII would have happened if Hitler had died in a car crash at 21.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

well for clarity I think it should be an option to consider in extreme examples such as repeat offenders or extreme circumstances, similar to the process that exists in the US (that was previously lumped in with North Korea).

You are truely accountable for your vote though. You are really just sluffing off the reality that your vote would cause on somebody else. That's the thing, in a democracy there is responsibility behind a vote. You are right you'd never have to talk to that family, but someone else will, and then that family will have to deal with an innocent death. So you get to escape the reality that your vote leaves behind.

People who are against the death penalty find it easy to do so because they don't have to connect with the reality it causes.

And the proposition itself is outlandish, but the cause and effect relationship isn't. And it's that relationship that people with your viewpoint don't like to deal with.

And I thought I was the one on a high horse...

So if, here in Canada, we implemented the death penalty and the system made a mistake, I assume you're gonna be in there explaining to the family of the victim why it was a necessary evil? You're not going to be hiding behind the structures of legal enforcement and governance with the reality-dodgers like me?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by driveway

That's not true. Calculating what would or would not happen if x is done in the past is an impossible task. It's like asking whether or not WWII would have happened if Hitler had died in a car crash at 21.

OK how about across infinate number of examples, in which scearnio does less innocent people and innocent guards die?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by fatso

And I thought I was the one on a high horse...

So if, here in Canada, we implemented the death penalty and the system made a mistake, I assume you're gonna be in there explaining to the family of the victim why it was a necessary evil? You're not going to be hiding behind the structures of legal enforcement and governance with the reality-dodgers like me?

In your example is the victim, the capital punishment victim? Then yes, abosolutely I'm ok with pointing out that the life of a convicted murder is worth less than the other lives in society.

I come back to the fact that it truely is about priorty. Guilty people or victims. It's not nice, but it's just true.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

OK how about across infinate number of examples, in which scearnio does less innocent people and innocent guards die?

Well, I can't find the stats, but a simple way to check would be to examine the murder rate, and find the number of prison guards killed in a nation like Canada, which has no death penalty.

And then compare that to the rate in a place like the US, which has the death penalty.

This statistical experiment could be carried out for the entire world, even. My guess is that you would find that not having a death penalty actually results in a lower rate of murder of both innocent civilians and prison guards.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

In your example is the victim, the capital punishment victim? Then yes, abosolutely I'm ok with pointing out that the life of a convicted murder is worth less than the other lives in society.

I come back to the fact that it truely is about priorty. Guilty people or victims. It's not nice, but it's just true.

OK. My example, though, was the victim of capital punishment who was wrongly convicted of murder. As we've just seen in the last couple weeks, innocent people are wrongly convicted of murder. Not all the time, but enough. I believe that because the possibility of executing an innocent individual exists, capital punishment should be disallowed for that reason alone.

So, if and when the system botches up, and executes an innocent individual, I can assume you'll be visiting his family explaining that his death was a necessary byproduct of a just system of death as punishment? That's your duty as Joe Blow citizen who believes in the death penalty?

And since you began this pathway of hypotheticals, why do I have to explain to the family of those guards that their sons died because I don't believe in the death penalty? Maybe those prisoners should have been in solitary confinement. Maybe they should have been done up like Hannibal Lecter or Magneto. While killing those prisoners would have meant those guards weren't killed, it's not the singular, only way to achieve that.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by driveway

Well, I can't find the stats, but a simple way to check would be to examine the murder rate, and find the number of prison guards killed in a nation like Canada, which has no death penalty.

And then compare that to the rate in a place like the US, which has the death penalty.

This statistical experiment could be carried out for the entire world, even. My guess is that you would find that not having a death penalty actually results in a lower rate of murder of both innocent civilians and prison guards.

No, a bit nitpicky but that wouldn't work because if you compare countries you'll have all kinds of noise such as the security levels of the facilities, and the beliefs and norms in different countries.

And my guess is that capital punishment reduces innocent deaths.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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.

But inorder to mitiagate and lessen the amount of inoccent people being murdered by the death penalty, these checks and balances need to be in place, thus it would be inpossible to put the person to death the day after conviction.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by driveway

I also listed the possibility of solitary confinement. I have zero qualms about tying a convicted murderer up and throwing them in a hole for the rest of their natural life.

And THAT would be better than the death penalty in your view?

Yikes. I'd say that is so much more barbaric than execution.

Soilitary confinement still requires interaction with guards, thereby putting the innocents in possible life or death situations, and would require way more expensive and expansive facilities than is realistic.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by fatso

OK. My example, though, was the victim of capital punishment who was wrongly convicted of murder. As we've just seen in the last couple weeks, innocent people are wrongly convicted of murder. Not all the time, but enough. I believe that because the possibility of executing an innocent individual exists, capital punishment should be disallowed for that reason alone.

So, if and when the system botches up, and executes an innocent individual, I can assume you'll be visiting his family explaining that his death was a necessary byproduct of a just system of death as punishment? That's your duty as Joe Blow citizen who believes in the death penalty?

So then the comparision would be how many victims in each scenario. Wrongly acused reapeat offenders ... or whatever the criteria would be to be deemed not just a murderer, but an extreme, repeat or serial murderer vs number of people who die due to a repeat offender.

That would be an interesting study, but I'd guess you would be much more busy trying to connect with all the people you'd have to have discussions with than I.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

But inorder to mitiagate and lessen the amount of inoccent people being murdered by the death penalty, these checks and balances need to be in place, thus it would be inpossible to put the person to death the day after conviction.

Uh...yeah I am aware of that.

in this particular case though...the guy killed 3 more inmates before turning on the guard. 3 more life sentances....that'll teach him.

When is enough enough? Never? Let him keep going...why? What purpose does it serve other than to put other people in harms way? It makes zero sense.

The "purpose" of the death penalty in some cases is valid and beyond argument. Just because Canada has no death penalty, does not mean that there are not very good candidates for its use...which seems to be a theme developing here. "We are better because we dont have it" mentality. I say that's a load of horse puckey.

Olson, Bernardo, Pickton...what's the real benefit of keeping them alive? Now as far as I know they have not re-offended IN prison, but I would almost guarantee that they would should they ever escape or even worse, get paroled. So again, in these cases, the DP would serve to protect society. Thereby making it a valid deterent AND punishment.

Again..I am not necessarily a "pro death penalty" guy, but holy cripes there are most certainly reasons for it.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

It's not enough to just say something doesn't make sense.

again back to post #89 if that person was subject to capital punishment the odds of 3 more dead people is zero.

If there is not capital penalty the odds of 3 more dead people is greater than zero. Simple as that.

I don't agree with this math. Unless these guys are shot on the spot without a trial, I would say chances are pretty equal that if they were sentenced to death, they would kill guards in an attempt to escape.

[joe_mullen]

unfortunately, studies show that something along the lines of 10% of death penalties are performed on innocent people...not surprising in a system that relies on human judgement, not to mention has been shown to be racist and prejudiced against people of lower socioeconomic status.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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.

My arithmetic? This guy killed two people so even if you are for it, it doesn't add up.

His "compensation" amounts to nothing. He's dead, nothing changes. The people he killed aren't coming back. The victim's families are not going to be satisfied because the people are still dead. The killer didn't pay for anything, he just died at the hands of the state.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

My arithmetic? This guy killed two people so even if you are for it, it doesn't add up.

His "compensation" amounts to nothing. He's dead, nothing changes. The people he killed aren't coming back. The victim's families are not going to be satisfied because the people are still dead. The killer didn't pay for anything, he just died at the hands of the state.

He paid the ultimate penalty. There is no higher one society can give. Yes even if he had only killed one man his life wouldn't be full compensation. An innocent life for a guilty one isn't totally fair either but, he paid all he had. That's better than the alternatives which are less.