8th Amendment

[Kandahar]

That's NOT what I said. I didn't change the subject, jackass. I asked how you can be bitching about some stupid penal system that may work when the government is trying to take away first amendment rights. I also pointed out that you wouldn't be loosing any right under this new penal system except the right against "cruel and unusual" punishment. I was not changing the subject. YOU were putting words in my mouth, you s.o.b.

Just once I'd like to see you write something without calling anyone a jackass or a SOB or anything else.

Now then: What exactly is the main difference between the type of legal system you're suggesting and, say, the mafia? After all, as long as you obey the "laws" of the mafia, you're relatively safe from them. But if you break their laws, they'll murder you in cold blood to deter others from doing the same. It sounds to me like the ONLY difference is that the government was elected and the mafia wasn't (a moot point in light of the fact that you don't seem to support democracy either). Do you support the mob, or am I missing something in your argument?

 

[dstebbins]

Just once I'd like to see you write something without calling anyone a jackass or a SOB or anything else.

Now then: What exactly is the main difference between the type of legal system you're suggesting and, say, the mafia? After all, as long as you obey the "laws" of the mafia, you're relatively safe from them. But if you break their laws, they'll murder you in cold blood to deter others from doing the same. It sounds to me like the ONLY difference is that the government was elected and the mafia wasn't (a moot point in light of the fact that you don't seem to support democracy either). Do you support the mob, or am I missing something in your argument?

If it means crime control, so be it.

And when did I ever say we could abolish crime? Maybe organized crime will stay, but that's in every country, even China (and yes, I knew that organized crime was in China. I just didn't mention it because I didn't feel it was necessary). That's an unescapable part of life. I'm merely saying that dealing out harsher punishments will greatly reduce unorganized crime, and it will.

 

[Kandahar]

If it means crime control, so be it.

There's absolutely no difference between the government executing someone for going 70mph in a 65-zone, and a loan shark murdering someone for defaulting on a $100 debt. Even you can't seem to find a difference. What exactly is "crime," and why is it inherently less desirable than living in a society where the government does whatever the hell it wants with dubious justifications?

If you want to live in a society like this, why don't you just move to North Korea, or buy some land where you and your friends can kill each other at the slightest provocation. The rest of us would rather be civilized.

 

[dstebbins]

There's absolutely no difference between the government executing someone for going 70mph in a 65-zone, and a loan shark murdering someone for defaulting on a $100 debt. Even you can't seem to find a difference. What exactly is "crime," and why is it inherently less desirable than living in a society where the government does whatever the hell it wants with dubious justifications?

If you want to live in a society like this, why don't you just move to North Korea, or buy some land where you and your friends can kill each other at the slightest provocation. The rest of us would rather be civilized.

for the millionth time, I am not saying we should remove every right in the Constitution. Just the 8th amendment. I'm not saying the government should "do whatever the hell it wants with dubious justifications." I'm saying they should do what it take to reduce crime.

Of course, I notice you can't comment on what I saw about organized crime vs. unorganized crime. That's because you know that I'm right when I say that dealing out harsher punishments will reduce unorganized crime while nothing will reduce organized crime so we might as well not even consider that.

 

[Kandahar]

for the millionth time, I am not saying we should remove every right in the Constitution. Just the 8th amendment. I'm not saying the government should "do whatever the hell it wants with dubious justifications." I'm saying they should do what it take to reduce crime.

Of course, I notice you can't comment on what I saw about organized crime vs. unorganized crime. That's because you know that I'm right when I say that dealing out harsher punishments will reduce unorganized crime while nothing will reduce organized crime so we might as well not even consider that.

Government-sanctioned murder for speeding violations seems like "organized crime" to me, so yes, you CAN reduce organized crime by not allowing the government to do this kind of thing in the first place.

Please explain to me the moral distinction between:
1) The government summarily executing everyone convicted of a traffic violation, however petty, to discourage people from committing traffic violations.
2) A loan shark murdering everyone who defaults on a loan, however small, to discourage people from defaulting on $50 loans.

 

[dstebbins]

Government-sanctioned murder for speeding violations seems like "organized crime" to me, so yes, you CAN reduce organized crime by not allowing the government to do this kind of thing in the first place.

It seems to me that you're against the death penalty. Naturally you'd be against the abolishment of the 8th amendment because you think a rape & murder combination deserves nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Please explain to me the moral distinction between:
1) The government summarily executing everyone convicted of a traffic violation, however petty, to discourage people from committing traffic violations.
2) A loan shark murdering everyone who defaults on a loan, however small, to discourage people from defaulting on $50 loans.

Maybe there is no difference. So? Perhaps killing someone for declaring bankrupcy against the mafia will intimidate people into paying them back, just the same as killing someone for speeding will intimidate them into obeying the laws of the street.

 

[Kandahar]

It seems to me that you're against the death penalty. Naturally you'd be against the abolishment of the 8th amendment because you think a rape & murder combination deserves nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

I am against the death penalty. But the punishment for rape or murder has little to do with the thread here, since you've advocated the death penalty for nearly ANY crime. Stop changing the subject.

Maybe there is no difference. So? Perhaps killing someone for declaring bankrupcy against the mafia will intimidate people into paying them back, just the same as killing someone for speeding will intimidate them into obeying the laws of the street.

Then I repeat: What, exactly, is the point in reducing crime if the average citizen is going to live in more fear and danger under your system than he ever did under the current system?

I for one would rather live in a society that has some speeders on the road, than a society where I live in dread that I might go over the speed limit and be executed. But that's just me. Fortunately I think most other people feel the same way.

 

[dstebbins]

I am against the death penalty. But the punishment for rape or murder has little to do with the thread here, since you've advocated the death penalty for nearly ANY crime. Stop changing the subject.



Then I repeat: What, exactly, is the point in reducing crime if the average citizen is going to live in more fear and danger under your system than he ever did under the current system?

I for one would rather live in a society that has some speeders on the road, than a society where I live in dread that I might go over the speed limit and be executed. But that's just me. Fortunately I think most other people feel the same way.

It all goes back to the definition of crime: An act against society that puts other people in danger. You may be subject to death for speeding, but this way, no one will be speeding, so there it will be a lot safer because no one commits unorganized crime.

 

[shuamort]

I've quickly zoomed through this thread, but didn't see much in the way of proof being proffered here. Let's start with the beginning and work forward.

First off, the 8th Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The position proffered by dstebbins seems to deal mostly with the latter part of the amendment. The "cruel and unusual punishments".

First off, this is a poorly written amendment in my opinion. Its terms are very subjective. Let's parse it down a bit and work with two of the words.

Cruel. Remember that bit from comedienne Paula Poundstone who said: Remember that 560-pound criminal who was released from jail because he had asthma? He claimed jail was bad for him. Who made up this rule? I thought jail was supposed to be a little bit bad for you. Apparently not anymore. Apparently now it's like, "Sorry, claustrophobia. Can't go. Wish I could. Sorry" The electric chair? "No way. Even a heating pad gives me a rash."

Unusual. Well, what's unusual? If a lot of judges start sentencing a criminal to the same punishment, is it no longer unusual? A thief convicted of stealing mail was sentenced as follows:

The release conditions stated that Gementera must spend four days at a post office observing staff dealing with inquiries about lost or stolen mail, write letters of apology to the victims of his crime and give three lectures about his crime at schools.

The judge also ordered him to wear a signboard reading "I stole mail - this is my punishment" for a full eight-hour working day.

Now, on to the main post:

The United States has one of the worst crime rates in the world. A crime is committed every thirty seconds!

Well, let's look at serious crimes. Murder, albeit subjectively, is one of the worst, according to this site, we're ranked 24th per capita. Per capita is a much better rating than "every thirty seconds" as time passed doesn't take in comparable factors such as population. A city of 10 people is going to have much less crime per day than a city of 10 million people. So here's the ranking of countries globally and their murder rates per capita:


Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Colombia 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States 0.042802 per 1,000 people

This is clearly due to the fact of our lenient penal system.

This is a syllogism. No link between a lenient penal system and crimes committed has been introduced. Please show proof of this claim.

Criminals will commit hainous crimes and not care because the worst that can happen to them is a fifty dollar fine and a few days in jail.

Consequences of crimes are not necessarily a deterrent. The death penalty, for one, has been proven over and over again not to be a crime deterrent. Here's a recent study that buttresses my claim. (PDF file)

This is especially true in California, where you can't even spank your own children.

That's incorrect:

CALIFORNIA
Law not intended to prohibit the use of reasonable methods of parental discipline, or to prescribe a particular method of parenting. Serious physical harm does not include reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the buttocks where there is no evidence of serious physical injury. Welf. and Inst. Code Sec. 300. [Ci.] Abuse includes unlawful corporal punishment or injury. Penal Code Sec. 11165.6.[Cr.] "Unlawful corporal punishment or injury" is any person willfully inflicting upon a child any cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or injury resulting in a traumatic condition. Penal Code Sec. 11165.4.[Cr.]

So I have an idea: Completely remove the 8th Amendment by constitutional amendment. You stole a pencil, you get whipped and lashed. You raped somebody, you get your skin shaven off with a potato pealer while your fully concious. You killed someone, some kind of petroleum product is poured on you and then you are lit on fire.

Well, there's a problem with the imperfection of the legal systems as it is. We just had a man who had been executed proven to be not guilty of the crime he was sentenced to death for. Get the bugs out of the judicial system first.

After that, I can't imagine the folks that would apply for a job to take a potato peeler to someone's flesh, or emmoliate another living human being. Yikes.

And just to ensure that there won't be anyone trying to get out of the punishment, we'll completely remove the "excessive force" restriction on cops, so that they can shoot you in the head if you so much as jerk away from them, so long as they can prove you jerked away. This way, there will be no "resisting arrest."

Umm, so this would be post hoc proving? So, if it turned out that you actually didn't jerk away and you're dead, where's the recourse? Bad idea.

Think of the good this could bring! Since the penalties are so harsh, people will be indimidated into obedience!

As I've shown up above, it hasn't worked for the death penalty which is a pretty harsh penalty.

Now, I know what you're first defense is going to be: "Without the 8th amendment, you'd be sentenced to death for speeding on the highway!" I actually got that once. Well, that's kind of the idea. Intimidating the people into obeying the law.

Ironic that this came up. I was driving along today and tried to think of one single person that I know that hasn't sped once. One person who hasn't gotten a speeding ticket. I couldn't think of one person. And these are good people who pay taxes, contribute to society, and are generally law abiding citizens living happy lives. The punishments you're proffering are far from commisserate with the infractions.

 

[dstebbins]

I've quickly zoomed through this thread, but didn't see much in the way of proof being proffered here. Let's start with the beginning and work forward.

First off, the 8th Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The position proffered by dstebbins seems to deal mostly with the latter part of the amendment. The "cruel and unusual punishments".

I'm talking about the entire 8th amendment, emphasizing cruel and unusual punishment simply because it's the biggest issue in the 8th amendment. We could remove the excessive fines part too, and charge a twenty thousand dollar fine for making prank 911 calls.

First off, this is a poorly written amendment in my opinion. Its terms are very subjective. Let's parse it down a bit and work with two of the words.

Cruel. Remember that bit from comedienne Paula Poundstone who said: Remember that 560-pound criminal who was released from jail because he had asthma? He claimed jail was bad for him. Who made up this rule? I thought jail was supposed to be a little bit bad for you. Apparently not anymore. Apparently now it's like, "Sorry, claustrophobia. Can't go. Wish I could. Sorry" The electric chair? "No way. Even a heating pad gives me a rash."

Unusual. Well, what's unusual? If a lot of judges start sentencing a criminal to the same punishment, is it no longer unusual? A thief convicted of stealing mail was sentenced as follows:

You're point is?

Now, on to the main post:


Well, let's look at serious crimes. Murder, albeit subjectively, is one of the worst, according to this site, we're ranked 24th per capita. Per capita is a much better rating than "every thirty seconds" as time passed doesn't take in comparable factors such as population. A city of 10 people is going to have much less crime per day than a city of 10 million people. So here's the ranking of countries globally and their murder rates per capita:


Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Colombia 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States 0.042802 per 1,000 people

But look at how many countries there are in the world. Last I checked, there were over two hundred. Twenty fourth place is kind of serious in comparison to the place we could be.

This is a syllogism. No link between a lenient penal system and crimes committed has been introduced. Please show proof of this claim.[/quote]
While I have no link to this, I do know someone convicted of a felony, specifically drug-selling. He said he didn't care at the time because he knew that, with plea bargaining, he would have a very linient sentence, which ended up being two weeks in prison and a year probation. Prove to me that other people aren't just like that?

Consequences of crimes are not necessarily a deterrent. The death penalty, for one, has been proven over and over again not to be a crime deterrent. Here's a recent study that buttresses my claim. (PDF file)

Interesting find there. I am confident that the only reason the death penalty isn't working is because they've taken out every ounce of intimidation out of it with lethal injection. It's quick and painless (at least according to the experts who invinted it) and you die while sleeping! The punishments I suggest would be very intimidating, and as such, no one would want to go through with them.

That's incorrect:

then explain why parents are getting their kids taken away because they spank their kids in CA.

Well, there's a problem with the imperfection of the legal systems as it is. We just had a man who had been executed proven to be not guilty of the crime he was sentenced to death for. Get the bugs out of the judicial system first.

I can't disagree with that. Maybe we should get the bugs out, but what do we do after that?

After that, I can't imagine the folks that would apply for a job to take a potato peeler to someone's flesh, or emmoliate another living human being. Yikes.

Uuuuuuuuh, ME! I'd gladly do it for free! It would actually be quite adrenaline-pumping.:mrgreen:

Umm, so this would be post hoc proving? So, if it turned out that you actually didn't jerk away and you're dead, where's the recourse? Bad idea.

If they can't PROVE that you jerked away, which would be very difficult without the body to show proof, then they committed murder and are subject to being lit on fire just the same as a common murderer is. Who would take the risk, but the criminals don't need to know that!

As I've shown up above, it hasn't worked for the death penalty which is a pretty harsh penalty.

See my response to the one you are reffering to.

Ironic that this came up. I was driving along today and tried to think of one single person that I know that hasn't sped once. One person who hasn't gotten a speeding ticket. I couldn't think of one person. And these are good people who pay taxes, contribute to society, and are generally law abiding citizens living happy lives. The punishments you're proffering are far from commisserate with the infractions.

but this would decrease the speeding statistic. Those "good people who pay taxes, contribute to society, and are generally law abiding citizens living happy lives" would be even more so.

 

[shuamort]

I'm talking about the entire 8th amendment, emphasizing cruel and unusual punishment simply because it's the biggest issue in the 8th amendment. We could remove the excessive fines part too, and charge a twenty thousand dollar fine for making prank 911 calls.


You're point is?

Breaking down the argument before building up mine.

But look at how many countries there are in the world. Last I checked, there were over two hundred.

Must have been a while since you checked:
Currently, there are 192 states recognized by the United Nations — its 191 members and the Vatican.

Twenty fourth place is kind of serious in comparison to the place we could be.

It's not good, that's for sure. But it's not "one of the worst". We're not in the top 10%.

While I have no link to this, I do know someone convicted of a felony, specifically drug-selling. He said he didn't care at the time because he knew that, with plea bargaining, he would have a very linient sentence, which ended up being two weeks in prison and a year probation. Prove to me that other people aren't just like that?

You've got one anecdotal example versus the amount of data compiled with many, many people over many, many years. I'm sure I can find a gay transvestite Republican, that doesn't mean that that's the status quo or the norm. Positions are always going to have deviations. One has to look at the whole picture and not isolated occurences to build a case.

Interesting find there. I am confident that the only reason the death penalty isn't working is because they've taken out every ounce of intimidation out of it with lethal injection. It's quick and painless (at least according to the experts who invinted it) and you die while sleeping! The punishments I suggest would be very intimidating, and as such, no one would want to go through with them.

I'm sorry, that argument doesn't hold water. Per the statistics previously supplied, the deterrence rates of the death penalty doesn't vary per state. The mode of the death penalty does however. Lethal injection is the prevalent form, but electrocution is used in AL AK FL KY NE OK SC TN VA. Lethal gas is used in AZ CA MO WY. Hanging is used in DE NH WA. Firing squad is used in ID OK UT.

then explain why parents are getting their kids taken away because they spank their kids in CA.

Please show a case where the children were taken away solely for spanking within California's guidelines as I elucidated above.

I can't disagree with that. Maybe we should get the bugs out, but what do we do after that?

Status quo.

Uuuuuuuuh, ME! I'd gladly do it for free! It would actually be quite adrenaline-pumping.:mrgreen:

A-ha.

If they can't PROVE that you jerked away, which would be very difficult without the body to show proof, then they committed murder and are subject to being lit on fire just the same as a common murderer is. Who would take the risk, but the criminals don't need to know that!

How can one prove whether one jerked, or at this point, attempted to jerk, away from the police. It would require constant camera surveillance, from multiple angles which would have somehow have to monitor intent as well. Moreover, it's not the duty of the police to enact the punishment, just enforce the law.

but this would decrease the speeding statistic. Those "good people who pay taxes, contribute to society, and are generally law abiding citizens living happy lives" would be even more so.

Taking one of your examples... I'm in a car, I'm speeding to the hospital to take my wife who's in the middle of contractions. Cop pulls me over and has me step out of the car. My wife goes into heavy labor and I jerk away from the cop to see what's going on. Blam, the cop shoots me.

One of the main problems with your theories here is that the punishment is not commensurate with the crime committed. A dead citizen for speeding or jerking is far from coextensive from any impact on society that could have come from a speeder. It's just farcical.

 

[dstebbins]

Must have been a while since you checked:
Currently, there are 192 states recognized by the United Nations — its 191 members and the Vatican.

Just because they aren't recognized by the UN doesn't mean they don't exist. Afghanistan is not recognized by the United Nations. Are you saying that it's not a country?

It's not good, that's for sure. But it's not "one of the worst". We're not in the top 10%.

Who made the rule that you had to be in the top ten to be "one of the worst?" I'm not exactly among the top ten tallest people on earth, but I consider myself pretty damn tall. Before anyone accuses me of "changing the subject," I was trying to show a more casual way of backing up my claim.

You've got one anecdotal example versus the amount of data compiled with many, many people over many, many years. I'm sure I can find a gay transvestite Republican, that doesn't mean that that's the status quo or the norm. Positions are always going to have deviations. One has to look at the whole picture and not isolated occurences to build a case.

Again with this concrete proof thing. You know, Albert Einstein didn't carry out any physical experiments. He just carried out projects and reached conclusions based on thought and logic, and now people consider his words just as sound as Watson and Crick, and HE WAS AUTISTIC!!!!!!![/quote]

electrocution is used in AL AK FL KY NE OK SC TN VA

Electric Chair is rather quick. It lasts a few seconds only.

Lethal gas is used in AZ CA MO WY.

Lethal gas is carbon monoxide, which does nothing "lethal" except ease you into a sleep that you don't wake up from. No pain whatsoever.

Hanging is used in DE NH WA. Firing squad is used in ID OK UT.

can you show me murder rates in those states?

Please show a case where the children were taken away solely for spanking within California's guidelines as I elucidated above.

Again with this concrete proof thing. You know, Albert Einstein didn't carry out any physical experiments. He just carried out projects and reached conclusions based on thought and logic, and now people consider his words just as sound as Watson and Crick, and HE WAS AUTISTIC!!!!!!!

A-ha.

?

How can one prove whether one jerked, or at this point, attempted to jerk, away from the police. It would require constant camera surveillance, from multiple angles which would have somehow have to monitor intent as well. Moreover, it's not the duty of the police to enact the punishment, just enforce the law.

Uh, that's the idea! No cop will want to take the chance of not being able to prove it! This new law is solely an intimidation tool so that people won't resist arrest.

Taking one of your examples... I'm in a car, I'm speeding to the hospital to take my wife who's in the middle of contractions. Cop pulls me over and has me step out of the car. My wife goes into heavy labor and I jerk away from the cop to see what's going on. Blam, the cop shoots me.

Okay, we obviously live in different states. In my state, you don't have to pull over for a cop if you have a wife in labor because you have a good reason for speeding and the cop will see that you're speeding for a noble cause. As long as you hit no one, you're okay. I'm only saying we should deal out harsher punishments for things that are already crimes, not make more things crimes.

One of the main problems with your theories here is that the punishment is not commensurate with the crime committed. A dead citizen for speeding or jerking is far from coextensive from any impact on society that could have come from a speeder. It's just farcical.

that's kind of the idea. Intimidating people into obeying the law.

But let's entertain your claim for a minute. Let's assume that it's NOT the penal system that's the problem. I'm sure you can definitely agree that improving the penal system would produce favorable results, if not favorable tactics. Debate that.

 

[Mikkel]

First, I'm going to predict the future.

1) No one is going to agree with me here. This is only because they don't want to agree with me.
2) Nobody is going to make a comeback that I will not be able to comeback on myself.
3) When a person realizes they cannot win this debate, they will stop debating, either through leaving the thread or hanging around for the sole purpose of harrassing me, saying stuff like "You definately need help. Get some therapy." Anyone who says "I just see nothing to debate about." is a bald-faced liar. Ending the debate is the arrogant way of saying "Maybe you're right. Maybe this will work."

I think the reason most people won't continue arguing with you is simply because you are so stubborn and arrogant. With some people it is impossible to win an argument, not because they're right, but because they are so mentally deranged that they cannot be influenced through normal paths of communication. So please don't assume that simply because someone stops arguing with you due to frustration that you have won the argument. Anyone who is so strongly attached to their theoretical positions that they put this type of disclaimer before their post simply does not have the wisdom to understand the purpose of debate. Debate is for growth, for enlightenment, not for proving to the world that you're always right.

Anyone who thinks they are simply 'right' on a subject like this is displaying a horrible kind of ignorance. And we all know that, "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." So if you really want to convince others of your position, try not to seem so ignorant.

 

[dstebbins]

I think the reason most people won't continue arguing with you is simply because you are so stubborn and arrogant. With some people it is impossible to win an argument, not because they're right, but because they are so mentally deranged that they cannot be influenced through normal paths of communication. So please don't assume that simply because someone stops arguing with you due to frustration that you have won the argument. Anyone who is so strongly attached to their theoretical positions that they put this type of disclaimer before their post simply does not have the wisdom to understand the purpose of debate. Debate is for growth, for enlightenment, not for proving to the world that you're always right.

Anyone who thinks they are simply 'right' on a subject like this is displaying a horrible kind of ignorance. And we all know that, "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." So if you really want to convince others of your position, try not to seem so ignorant.

.......okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. Now can you comment on the juice of the debate?

 

[Mikkel]

.......okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. Now can you comment on the juice of the debate?

Okay, out of all of the inflammatory remarks you've made, what has made me most amazed was in post #15 when you wrote,

"There are two keen differences between the United States and Iraq: We're the most powerful country on earth. Iraq wasn't, so therefore, if we remove the 8th Amendment, no one's going to do anything about it.

Two, Suddam Hussain was a tyrant, as in he was the only person in charge. With the United States, we have a shitload of government representatives making and enforcing the laws through our consent. One little forfitted right is not going to make the United States a dictatorship like Iraq, North Korea, or China."

First of all, simply because we're the most powerful country in the world, does that make it ok to infringe upon basic human rights? Your whole argument in this post comes across as simply 'let's do it because we can get away with it' rather than 'let's do it because it makes sense', because it doesn't make sense.
If you're going to attack any amendment in the bill of rights in an attempt to reduce crime, wouldn't the first logical one be the 2nd amendment? A large portion of this country believes strongly in using gun control as a means to reduce violent crimes (a much larger group than those who oppose the 8th amendment, at least).
The reason the 2nd amendment remains in the constitution is because once you start attacking individual amendments in the bill of rights, you start attacking the validity of the bill of rights as a whole. So while you may say that you are only want to sacrifice the rights afforded to us in the 8th amendment, this will never realistically be an option without bringing the risk of sacrificing all of our other rights.

 

[shuamort]

Note: I had to fix the coding on your post.

Just because they aren't recognized by the UN doesn't mean they don't exist. Afghanistan is not recognized by the United Nations. Are you saying that it's not a country?

What are you talking about? Afghanistan is recognized by the UN.

Who made the rule that you had to be in the top ten to be "one of the worst?" I'm not exactly among the top ten tallest people on earth, but I consider myself pretty damn tall. Before anyone accuses me of "changing the subject," I was trying to show a more casual way of backing up my claim.

This is getting into boring semantics. But I stand my ground by standing that it's not "one of the worst".

Again with this concrete proof thing. You know, Albert Einstein didn't carry out any physical experiments. He just carried out projects and reached conclusions based on thought and logic, and now people consider his words just as sound as Watson and Crick, and HE WAS AUTISTIC!!!!!!!

He reached his conclusions and was able to offer proof of it. Sorry, this IS a debate and not an opinion forum.

Electric Chair is rather quick. It lasts a few seconds only.

Except for when it doesn't:

In theory, unconsciousness occurs in a fraction of a second. There have been reports of victims' heads on fire, of burning transformers, and of letting the crying victim wait in pain on the floor of the execution room while the chair was fixed. In 1946, the electric chair failed to kill Willie Francis, who reportedly shrieked "Stop it! Let me breathe!" as he was being executed. It turned out that the portable electric chair had been improperly set up by an intoxicated trustee. A case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court (Francis v. Resweber), 329 U.S. 459 (1947), with lawyers for the murderer arguing that although Francis did not die, he had, in fact, been executed. The argument was rejected, and Francis was returned to the electric chair and killed the following year.

Lethal gas is carbon monoxide, which does nothing "lethal" except ease you into a sleep that you don't wake up from. No pain whatsoever.

Following the video taped execution of Robert Alton Harris a federal court in California declared this method of execution as "cruel and unusual punishment". In fact, it is highly unlikely that any of these states will ever again utilize the gas chamber, unless an inmate specifically requests to die by this method. The use of the gas chamber was also controversial because of the use of large chambers to kill millions in Nazi concentration camps. Most states have now switched to methods considered less inhumane by officials, such as lethal injection.

can you show me murder rates in those states?

Murder rates would be irrelevent as we're not talking about murder but prevention. Capital punishment in any form has not proved to be a deterrent.

Uh, that's the idea! No cop will want to take the chance of not being able to prove it! This new law is solely an intimidation tool so that people won't resist arrest.

A useless law is just that. Useless. Our police have enough on their plates than to have to have this on it too.

But let's entertain your claim for a minute. Let's assume that it's NOT the penal system that's the problem. I'm sure you can definitely agree that improving the penal system would produce favorable results, if not favorable tactics. Debate that.

That would be a different topic. I'd hate to hijack what's going on here.

 

[dstebbins]

Okay, out of all of the inflammatory remarks you've made, what has made me most amazed was in post #15 when you wrote,

"There are two keen differences between the United States and Iraq: We're the most powerful country on earth. Iraq wasn't, so therefore, if we remove the 8th Amendment, no one's going to do anything about it.

Two, Suddam Hussain was a tyrant, as in he was the only person in charge. With the United States, we have a shitload of government representatives making and enforcing the laws through our consent. One little forfitted right is not going to make the United States a dictatorship like Iraq, North Korea, or China."

First of all, simply because we're the most powerful country in the world, does that make it ok to infringe upon basic human rights? Your whole argument in this post comes across as simply 'let's do it because we can get away with it' rather than 'let's do it because it makes sense', because it doesn't make sense.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. While I am saying that they'd get away with it, I'm not saying they should do it BECAUSE they would get away with it. I'm saying they should do it because it would work, and while it may not make sense to you, that doesn't mean it's a rogue proposal.

If you're going to attack any amendment in the bill of rights in an attempt to reduce crime, wouldn't the first logical one be the 2nd amendment? A large portion of this country believes strongly in using gun control as a means to reduce violent crimes (a much larger group than those who oppose the 8th amendment, at least).

Uh, no. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Taking away the right to own a gun will just create a black market, just like drugs. People are going to sell guns if they can, UNLESS they are intimidated into obeying the law. Are you trying to tell me that dealing out harsher punishments will also create a black market?

The reason the 2nd amendment remains in the constitution is because once you start attacking individual amendments in the bill of rights, you start attacking the validity of the bill of rights as a whole. So while you may say that you are only want to sacrifice the rights afforded to us in the 8th amendment, this will never realistically be an option without bringing the risk of sacrificing all of our other rights.

No constitutional amendment has ever been passed without overwhelming support. That's why I'm coming here, to get support for my case. I would never support the removal of the good amendments. The original transcript of the Constitution was not perfect, as it has been amended 27 times. What makes you think that the original transcript of the Bill of Rights is not without flaw?

 

[dstebbins]

What are you talking about? Afghanistan is recognized by the UN.

Well, there ARE areas out there that are not recognized as countries by the UN but still are around. Are you telling me that they aren't countries?

This is getting into boring semantics. But I stand my ground by standing that it's not "one of the worst".

whatever.:roll:

He reached his conclusions and was able to offer proof of it. Sorry, this IS a debate and not an opinion forum.

WHOA MAN! when did I EVER say this was an opinion forum?

Except for when it doesn't:

In theory, unconsciousness occurs in a fraction of a second. There have been reports of victims' heads on fire, of burning transformers, and of letting the crying victim wait in pain on the floor of the execution room while the chair was fixed. In 1946, the electric chair failed to kill Willie Francis, who reportedly shrieked "Stop it! Let me breathe!" as he was being executed. It turned out that the portable electric chair had been improperly set up by an intoxicated trustee. A case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court (Francis v. Resweber), 329 U.S. 459 (1947), with lawyers for the murderer arguing that although Francis did not die, he had, in fact, been executed. The argument was rejected, and Francis was returned to the electric chair and killed the following year.

In all the cases you stated, there was some miscalculation. Have a computer set up the chair, so as to greatly reduce the number of mistakes. Then it WILL be instantanious.

Following the video taped execution of Robert Alton Harris a federal court in California declared this method of execution as "cruel and unusual punishment". In fact, it is highly unlikely that any of these states will ever again utilize the gas chamber, unless an inmate specifically requests to die by this method. The use of the gas chamber was also controversial because of the use of large chambers to kill millions in Nazi concentration camps. Most states have now switched to methods considered less inhumane by officials, such as lethal injection.[/quote]
That just works in my argument's favor. Because they allow convicts to choose how they die, they will pick the less painful, and as such less intimidating, method of lethal injection. Again, lethal injection is not intimidating, and as such does nothing to reduce crime.

Murder rates would be irrelevent as we're not talking about murder but prevention. Capital punishment in any form has not proved to be a deterrent.

Ah, but it would be relevent. If murder rates are higher in those states than in the states where lethal injection is most commonly used, then it obviously isn't working. However, if murder rates are lower, then obviously hanging murderers intimidates them into obedience.

A useless law is just that. Useless. Our police have enough on their plates than to have to have this on it too.

The law is not useless. It's for intimidating the people out of resisting arrest. The people don't need to know that the cops have to prove their innocence.

That would be a different topic. I'd hate to hijack what's going on here.

Okay, maybe you can entertain this: If dishing out harsher punishments won't work, then what will? Obviously China, North Korea, and Japan are doing something right that we're doing wrong. If it's not the penal system, what is it?

 

[Mikkel]

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. While I am saying that they'd get away with it, I'm not saying they should do it BECAUSE they would get away with it. I'm saying they should do it because it would work, and while it may not make sense to you, that doesn't mean it's a rogue proposal.


Uh, no. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Taking away the right to own a gun will just create a black market, just like drugs. People are going to sell guns if they can, UNLESS they are intimidated into obeying the law. Are you trying to tell me that dealing out harsher punishments will also create a black market?


No constitutional amendment has ever been passed without overwhelming support. That's why I'm coming here, to get support for my case. I would never support the removal of the good amendments. The original transcript of the Constitution was not perfect, as it has been amended 27 times. What makes you think that the original transcript of the Bill of Rights is not without flaw?

Your Machiavellian ramblings are inane. All the amendments on The Bill of Rights have never been altered since they were originally passed, and while nothing in this world is flawless, those 10 amendments represent the fundamental freedoms our nation is founded on. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness characterizes how our founding fathers viewed the role of government. Those amendments were made to protect the people from government. You're calling for a martial state where citizens fear the government. You are condoning torture of US citizens. The crime rate isn't perfect, no, but its fundamentally unamerican to stop it by frightening citizens into acting one way or another. Eventually you'll just end up with totalitarianism. It doesn't work in a free society.

 

[shuamort]

Well, there ARE areas out there that are not recognized as countries by the UN but still are around. Are you telling me that they aren't countries?

So, I've shown you were wrong with proof and you don't admit it and apologize. This has happened multiple times in this thread already and is getting a bit tedious.

WHOA MAN! when did I EVER say this was an opinion forum?

Say? No. Acting like it is by not giving proof for your continuously erroneous claims.

In all the cases you stated, there was some miscalculation. Have a computer set up the chair, so as to greatly reduce the number of mistakes. Then it WILL be instantanious.

Yes, because computers aren't infallible. :roll:

That just works in my argument's favor. Because they allow convicts to choose how they die, they will pick the less painful, and as such less intimidating, method of lethal injection. Again, lethal injection is not intimidating, and as such does nothing to reduce crime.

Actually, no. That argument works exactly in the opposite of your favor. You're positing that people are less likely to commit crimes due to nasty punishments. If a person has a choice for an easier punishment, your theory doesn't work. Are you listening to your arguments even?

Ah, but it would be relevent. If murder rates are higher in those states than in the states where lethal injection is most commonly used, then it obviously isn't working. However, if murder rates are lower, then obviously hanging murderers intimidates them into obedience.

No, it's still irrelevent as the results have shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent. The manner of penalty of death is irrelevent since the penalty altogether is irrelevent.

The law is not useless. It's for intimidating the people out of resisting arrest. The people don't need to know that the cops have to prove their innocence.

How are you going to pass a law that only some people know about? LOL

Okay, maybe you can entertain this: If dishing out harsher punishments won't work, then what will? Obviously China, North Korea, and Japan are doing something right that we're doing wrong. If it's not the penal system, what is it?

The culture for one.

 

[dstebbins]

The culture for one.

What the hell? What the **** are you talking about, "the culture for one?"

 

[shuamort]

What the hell? What the **** are you talking about, "the culture for one?"

The culture of China, North Korea, and Japan is much different than the US culture.

 

[dstebbins]

The culture of China, North Korea, and Japan is much different than the US culture.

what does culture have to do with crime rate?

 

[Thorgasm]

what does culture have to do with crime rate?

Code of Conduct, honor, values, work ethic, and loyalty for starters.

 

[dstebbins]

Code of Conduct, honor, values, work ethic, and loyalty for starters.

ooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaay. Then tell me, since we can't change our values, how are we supposed to reduce crime if we don't do something radical? Are you suggesting that we just live in a world of crime?