Guest American Woman Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 If the state is going to take responsibility for putting someone to death, they ought to consider the impact on that person's family who will be impacted by this decision and who had no hand in the person's crime. That would be a purely emotional response. As I pointed out previously, when a crime is committed, the law deals with the convicted and the victim. The purpose of the law is to hold the guilty accountable and make the victim whole. Interesting, though, that you bring up concern for the family of the convicted as you ignore the impact of murder on family of the victim(s). And I'm still waiting to hear an explanation for what appears to be a double standard regarding the "handful" of people who have been murdered by convicted murderers who have escaped or were paroled vs. the handful of people who were wrongly executed and/or the potential for such occurances. I'll refresh your memory as to what you said about the former: So what? What do you think that shows? You provided a handful of examples. Out of all all the people that have committed murder in the United States and have subsequently been released to jail, how many of them have committed another murder? Does the recidivism rate of murderers justify the death sentence and its potential to end the lives of innocent people? Why the concern only for the potential to end the lives of innocent people by execution - as you all but dismiss the murders that would have been prevented had the guilty been given the death sentence - ie: the potential to end the lives of more innocent people by not executing murderers. "So what," indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 oh ya, I expect you have a perverse admiration for Gary Gilmore's... "Let's do it"! The very highest and perverse of all. but, hey now... if you project on ~1300 executions as, as you stated, "beating a bleeding heart, like me", well... hey, it's your country! Why would I take exception to you chest thumping over your own countries ~ 1300 executions? This is the Canadian Federal Politics forum, right? Since when did that ever matter around here...do you limit global warming climate change data to just Canada? Nope...you actually specialize in regurgitating my "countries" (sic) data concerning such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 you all but dismiss the murders that would have been prevented had the guilty been given the death sentenceYou've hardly substantiated this by proving that it's a widespread issue. The amount of people that re-convict in Canada sits below 10%, the majority of those breaking conditions rather than re-offending. You claim putting murderers to death prevents more murder, but have not shown at all how many murderers kill again when they get out. You've not shown that it is such a serious problem that a state ought to be given the power to kill murderers so it doesn't happen again and you've not shown that at all that this would be preferable to life in prison. You claim prisoners can break out, so you not only need to substantiate your claim by showing a serious issue with recidivism, but you also need to show that there's a serious issue with prison breaks by murderers, followed by them murdering again. And all of that needs to be so common-place that it would make sense to give up your life to the state because the state makes mistakes, meaning anyone can be put to death by it. In Canada, where violent crime is at its lowest in 40 years, this makes absolutely no sense. In fact, it shows that the death penalty is absolutely unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Since when did that ever matter around here... your spelling nazi best is one of your flailing tells! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 your spelling nazi best is one of your flailing tells! You seem to have a consistent problem with the possessive vs. plural for the word "country". Not sure why... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 You claim putting murderers to death prevents more murder, Anyone who can demonstrate otherwise would prove life after death! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 I'm still waiting to hear an explanation for what appears to be a double standard... Speaking of which, why and how does someone who says they're opposed to the death penalty put so much energy into defending or advancing arguments given for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 That would be a purely emotional response. As I pointed out previously, when a crime is committed, the law deals with the convicted and the victim. The purpose of the law is to hold the guilty accountable and make the victim whole. Interesting, though, that you bring up concern for the family of the convicted as you ignore the impact of murder on family of the victim(s). And I'm still waiting to hear an explanation for what appears to be a double standard regarding the "handful" of people who have been murdered by convicted murderers who have escaped or were paroled vs. the handful of people who were wrongly executed and/or the potential for such occurances. I'll refresh your memory as to what you said about the former: Why the concern only for the potential to end the lives of innocent people by execution - as you all but dismiss the murders that would have been prevented had the guilty been given the death sentence - ie: the potential to end the lives of more innocent people by not executing murderers. "So what," indeed. The point youre bringing up about escaped convicts is kinda silly. First of all, guys like Bernardo and Olsen in Canada who would get the death penalty in Canada are under pretty sound lock and key. Its extremely unlikely they will escape. Further more the death penalty wont necessarily prevent these prisoners from escaping anyways, because these offenders spend decades in prison on death row while their appeals are exhausted etc. Still plenty of time for them to escape before the state wacks em. And if youre worried about escapes, you could beef up security in facilities that house dangerous offenders for a fraction of what it would cost to reform the criminal justice system around capital punishment. There simply is no problem that requires capital punishment as a solution, and there no evidence at all that capital punishment produces any usefull result to justify the massive cost of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 You've hardly substantiated this by proving that it's a widespread issue. The amount of people that re-convict in Canada sits below 10%, the majority of those breaking conditions rather than re-offending. I gave you a list. Can you provide a more substantial list of wrongfully convicted executed murderers? You claim putting murderers to death prevents more murder, but have not shown at all how many murderers kill again when they get out. I've provided examples of those who have, as you've provided nothing. You've not shown that it is such a serious problem that a state ought to be given the power to kill murderers so it doesn't happen again and you've not shown that at all that this would be preferable to life in prison. And you haven't shown that wrongfully convicting someone of murder and executing an innocent person is such a serious problem that we would be executing more innocent people than have been/could be murdered by previously convicted murderers. I'm not advocating the death penalty, but I'm not dismissing the fact that convicted murderers can, do, and have killed again. You seem to think it's so cut and dried and anyone who supports the death penalty has no regard for the fact that an innocent person could be wrongly executed - but the other side of the argument also has the potential for the loss of innocent lives. Everyone who supports the death penalty isn't seeking revenge with no regard for the potential loss of innocent lives; they are not all blood-thirsty vengeful people - there is an argument to be had for the death penalty regarding the potential loss of innocent lives, too. The claim that the death penalty doesn't save lives is a false claim. You claim prisoners can break out I don't "claim" that they "can," I've proven that they have - and that they have killed again. so you not only need to substantiate your claim by showing a serious issue with recidivism, but you also need to show that there's a serious issue with prison breaks by murderers, followed by them murdering again. I've provided a list - as you go on and on about "potential." How about giving something to back up your claims? How big a problem is wrongful convictions in murder cases? How serious an issue is wrongful deaths by execution? You "need" to "substantiate your claim" at least as much as I already have before you go demanding more from me. And all of that needs to be so common-place that it would make sense to give up your life to the state because the state makes mistakes, meaning anyone can be put to death by it. Well then, your claim of potential wrongful convictions in murder cases needs to be so common-place that it would make sense not to execute convicted murderers to spare the lives of those who have been murdered by previously convicted murderers. It works both ways. In Canada, where violent crime is at its lowest in 40 years, this makes absolutely no sense. In fact, it shows that the death penalty is absolutely unnecessary. It shows nothing of the sort. First of all, "violent crime" and "murder" are two different things. Secondly, I thought your gun laws were responsible for that .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 You seem to have a consistent problem with the possessive vs. plural for the word "country". Not sure why... He also gets prominent people's names wrong too. I had to correct him not that long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 The point youre bringing up about escaped convicts is kinda silly. Yeah. Real silly. Especially since I cited examples. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 I gave you a list. Can you provide a more substantial list of wrongfully convicted executed murderers? I've provided examples of those who have, as you've provided nothing. And you haven't shown that wrongfully convicting someone of murder and executing an innocent person is such a serious problem that we would be executing more innocent people than have been/could be murdered by previously convicted murderers. I'm not advocating the death penalty, but I'm not dismissing the fact that convicted murderers can, do, and have killed again. You seem to think it's so cut and dried and anyone who supports the death penalty has no regard for the fact that an innocent person could be wrongly executed - but the other side of the argument also has the potential for the loss of innocent lives. Everyone who supports the death penalty isn't seeking revenge with no regard for the potential loss of innocent lives; they are not all blood-thirsty vengeful people - there is an argument to be had for the death penalty regarding the potential loss of innocent lives, too. The claim that the death penalty doesn't save lives is a false claim. I don't "claim" that they "can," I've proven that they have - and that they have killed again. I've provided a list - as you go on and on about "potential." How about giving something to back up your claims? How big a problem is wrongful convictions in murder cases? How serious an issue is wrongful deaths by execution? You "need" to "substantiate your claim" at least as much as I already have before you go demanding more from me. Well then, your claim of potential wrongful convictions in murder cases needs to be so common-place that it would make sense not to execute convicted murderers to spare the lives of those who have been murdered by previously convicted murderers. It works both ways. It shows nothing of the sort. First of all, "violent crime" and "murder" are two different things. Secondly, I thought your gun laws were responsible for that .... I gave you a list. Can you provide a more substantial list of wrongfully convicted executed murderers? You posted some list off a pro DP site, but the problem is you didnt establish than any of those people were even capital criminals. Even in death penalty countries only a small percentage of murder cases are capital crimes. So even with capital punishment in place, you would still have that problem and you would still be able to trott out that little list. Furthermore, like I said before, people sentenced to death still sit in prison for a long time... often decades, so theres plenty of time to escape anyways. So if you want to actually make a cogent argument around that list... 1. Determine how many of those murders would have even been capital cases in the first place. Remember most murders dont get the death penalty anyways. 2. Of those... determine how many would have actually been put to death prior to the time of their escape. Remember the US is still executing people sentenced in the 80's, and its unclear whether many them will ever be executed at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 He also gets prominent people's names wrong too. I had to correct him not that long ago. I'm gobsmacked Shady... and memory fails me. Since you hold the correction in such veneration, let me give you an opportunity to play it over again. After all, given your many thumpings, you need to puff up your imagined triumphs any chance you get. What correction, Shady? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 It's pretty appalling that you would actually ask for a substantial list of innocent people put to death by the state, as though putting to death a single innocent person isn't tragic enough. Only a sick person would shrug their shoulders at innocent people being executed as "collateral damage" to stopping murderers from re-offending. According to Amnesty International, the United States released 10 wrongfully convicted people from death row and it's only a fraction of your states that use capital punishment. I would say 10 wrongfully convicted people in one year is substantial. Those are people that would have otherwise been killed. Since you think there needs to be a "substantial" number of innocent people killed for it to be bad policy to put people to death for criminal punishment, I refuse to humour any more of your replies on this subject. It is quite obviously only a seriously irrational, if not a considerably disturbed person that would require a substantial number of innocent people wrongfully executed--meaning a less than substantial number is acceptable--in order to reject capital punishment as an unethical practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 It's pretty appalling that you would actually ask for a substantial list of innocent people put to death by the state, as though putting to death a single innocent person isn't tragic enough. What's really weird is that she's against the death penalty because of the risk of executing the wrong person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Yeah. Real silly. Especially since I cited examples. :rolleyes: You can post a million little emoticons if you like. But I pointed out two very simple problems with the logic youre using. 1. How do you know that all those cases would have been capital crimes? Only a small percentage of murders are tried as capital crimes. 2. With inmates often waiting in prison for decades before the state kills them, how do you know any of people on your list that WERE convicted of capital crimes would have been executed prior to their escaping? Edited March 4, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 It's pretty appalling that you would actually ask for a substantial list of innocent people put to death by the state, as though putting to death a single innocent person isn't tragic enough. What's pretty appalling is that I was just asking of you what you've asked of me. I provided you with a list of people who have been murdered by previously convicted murderers - obviously "a handful" wasn't tragic enough for you - so I was going by your standards. Yet now I should be appalled by just one - as you say "so what?" to "a handful" of people who were murdered? Only a sick person would shrug their shoulders at innocent people being executed as "collateral damage" to stopping murderers from re-offending. Wow. You "shrug your shoulders" at innocent people who have been killed by previously convicted murderers, saying "so what?" - and then refer to "collateral damage" in QUOTES no less, as if I've said it or responded to such a thing - calling me "sick." Unbelievable. :angry: And this is as far as I read in your response as it tells me all I need to know about you and your stance on this ............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 .... It is quite obviously only a seriously irrational, if not a considerably disturbed person that would require a substantial number of innocent people wrongfully executed--meaning a less than substantial number is acceptable--in order to reject capital punishment as an unethical practice. This is a logical fallacy, as Canadian "society" readily accepts the cost-benefit tradeoffs for intentional and accidental deaths from a number of causes. Capital punishment would only be "unethical" when constrained to such a narrow spectrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 2. With inmates often waiting in prison for decades before the state kills them, how do you know any of people on your list that WERE convicted of capital crimes would have been executed prior to their escaping? Good point....need to execute them much sooner just to make sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 It is when my country tries to off a convicted Canadian murderer. Maybe they would get a lighter sentence if they stole panties too. Not according to the original thread.This about what Canadians believe. And yes it is the Canadian governments obligation to stand up for Canadian rights abroad. And as a side note you should get away from the tv/computer more often.Health first always!Or is that family first?Anyways its definetely not tv/computer first ever! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Not according to the original thread.This about what Canadians believe. I think is says "support"...not "believe". And yes it is the Canadian governments obligation to stand up for Canadian rights abroad. I have never understood this mindset...Canadian perp molests children or murders somebody in a different international jurisdiction, but only Canadian penalties should apply? That's just whacked. And as a side note you should get away from the tv/computer more often.Health first always!Or is that family first?Anyways its definetely not tv/computer first ever! Don't worry...I can still beat you in a mile 1500 meter run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Good point....need to execute them much sooner just to make sure. Yes, if you executed them immediately after trial clearly escapes would not be an issues. But you could probably prevent most of those escapes with common sense security measures as well and get a lot more bang for you buck. It might not be legally possible to speed up the process enough to avoid many years in jail, and the problem is this is so expensive that many states simply dont have the money to clear out death row queues. In any case that list in itself provides no arugment or evidence in support of the death penalty. It has not been established that even ONE SINGLE OFFENSE on that list would have been prevented by capital punishment. The whole argument is entirely fallacious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 I think is says "support"...not "believe". Don't worry...I can still beat you in a mile 1500 meter run. Support/believe whatever,are you my proofreader now?Are you interested in the position,well talk. As far as the 1500m run goes,you must be talking about some video game or you are one of those people that gets enough excersice from watching the tv/computer. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 ...In any case that list in itself provides no arugment or evidence in support of the death penalty. It has not been established that even ONE SINGLE OFFENSE on that list would have been prevented by capital punishment. The whole argument is entirely fallacious. It doesn't have to be, as pertinent law provides the penalty for crimes already committed, regardless of the potential for future crimes. Executed perps most certainly do not/cannot offend again, so from a purely statistical viewpoint, future crimes/offenses are prevented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) You can post a million little emoticons if you like. But I pointed out two very simple problems with the logic youre using. I do like. I consider it the only response your sanctimonious blowhard "kinda silly" comments are worthy of. Edited March 4, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.