• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is capital punishment a deterrent?

Is capital punishment a deterrent?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 10.7%
  • No

    Votes: 25 89.3%

  • Total voters
    28

GarzaUK

British, Irish and everything in-between.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,688
Reaction score
631
Location
Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
George_Washington said:
Of course killing an innocent person would be worse. But I don't think that means we shouldn't use the death penalty. If you commit horrible acts of violence and rape, I think you deserve to be put to death. I really do believe that. Whether or not it actually cuts down on crime is irrelevant; I believe the state simply has a moral duty to put to death people that are extremely sick and evil.

You are a christain George and a faithful one at that. Christains in their day to day lives try to be as morale as Jesus Christ.

Do you think Jesus Christ would support the death pelanty??

I just find it unchristain when christains support the execution of others, I can't remember Jesus teaching that.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by GarzaUK:
You are a christain George and a faithful one at that. Christains in their day to day lives try to be as morale as Jesus Christ.

Do you think Jesus Christ would support the death pelanty??

I just find it unchristain when christains support the execution of others, I can't remember Jesus teaching that.
Even though I haven't been to mass in a long time, I was raised a Catholic (and even Confirmed), but I'm surprized people don't get this very basic principle. Being a Christian means you try to live your life in a Christ-like way. And that's not pro-death!

I always liked that one story about how he was walking with someone and took them to this one room where people were sitting around a big pot of food, but were starving and miserable because the spoons and forks they had were so long they couldn't reach their mouths to put the food in.

Then he takes him to another room and you have the same pot, same people sitting in the same way with the same forks and spoons and their just having the time of their lives laughing and joking and just enjoying the day. And what was the difference?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
libertarian_knight said:
To be clear, there is no moral purpose to a government, any more than there is moral purpose to a hammer. One is a tool of force over nails and wood and hard things, the other is a tool of power over men. Both are tools, tools CAN be used morally, by men.

You're simply wrong. The moral purpose of government is to protect the lives and freedom of the citizens. Governments that fail in this, and all do, are immoral to the extent they fail. Governments that were established to rule are inherently immoral, period.

Physical tools don't have morality. They're things without volition.

Organizations have inherent morality because they're nothing but associations of men.

You're comments don't fit when taken as a gestalt, either. Consistency is a requirement.


libertarian_knight said:
"Better re-think your handle, you're no libertarian." you better re-think, you're no thinker. Read my statement again, intelligently this time. It is a description of the role of the ideal state. Two parts; neither of which suggest necessarily the state should be LIABLE for redress, rather statement one as the mechanism of redress.

What you said was:
libertarian_knight said:
I also think, a state executed by Moral Men, is that which secures the blessings of liberty, and should those Blessings be violated, offer an impartial means of redess, while never violating those Blessings themselves.

Now, if you're not capable of writing your thoughts so others can read your words and derive your intended meaning from them, you should stop writing on public walls until you learn how to express yourself clearly.

libertarian_knight said:
Moral men are more interested in diminishing the instrument of corruption and abuse, than chancing the botched may sieze it.
libertarian_knight said:
Moral men that have brains understand that one cannot reduce the power of government if they're not participating in government and seeking control. Even the dumbest of people realizes that it's the guy behind the wheel that tells the car where to go, not the whiny kibitzer in the trunk. Armed with this knowledge, a truly moral person cannot sit by and bitch while others are steering the wrong way.

Poetry clearly isn't your bag, not even the weak prose you essay here. Hang it up. As for the long words, spelling them correctly goes a long way to proving you understand their meaning. I'm not one to harp on the occasional spelling defect, we also do the typo-game. Personally, it will be a relief for you to use small words, hopefully of one letter or less, because you're an embarassment to we libertarians that understand the big words and can string them together successfully to express mature competent ideas.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
I feel for them too.

How about this women. Killer or Victim?

jacobs3nq.jpg


You and I killed her husband. And if you had your way,
she'd be dead too. For me, I don't want this sh_t being
done in my name.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=1149#rn20

Don't know the broad myself. I don't recall killing anyone this week. Last week, maybe, but I won't tell. Ask me when the statute of limitations runs out.

Is there some special reason this dizzy-looking broad decorates your post? Sorta looks like Steven Hawking. So she married a murderer, probably, your link doesn't seem to have her mug shot in it, and I'm not up to reading bleeding heart propaganda today, or ever. So did she marry the murderer before he committed his crime, or is she one of those sick jailhouse maggots that marry convicts?

I'm perfectly capable of writing an entire story on her life, but it would certainly be total fiction. How about if you hang a name on "Stevee" and tell us what her husband did to get his sorry butt executed? Give us the husband's name and we'll make it an orgy of denunciation and, for you, self-reproach.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
Don't know the broad myself. I don't recall killing anyone this week. Last week, maybe, but I won't tell. Ask me when the statute of limitations runs out.

Is there some special reason this dizzy-looking broad decorates your post? Sorta looks like Steven Hawking. So she married a murderer, probably, your link doesn't seem to have her mug shot in it, and I'm not up to reading bleeding heart propaganda today, or ever. So did she marry the murderer before he committed his crime, or is she one of those sick jailhouse maggots that marry convicts?

I'm perfectly capable of writing an entire story on her life, but it would certainly be total fiction. How about if you hang a name on "Stevee" and tell us what her husband did to get his sorry butt executed? Give us the husband's name and we'll make it an orgy of denunciation and, for you, self-reproach.
Executions are done in our name (ie., People vs ...) and I personnally don't won't people being killed in my name. This is probably not the best example I could have used. The court can't prove her guilty or innocent. Her old man was up on the same charges. But he was executed on those very same charges that she has been released on. I've got a big problem with that. They didn't prove he was a murderer. They (the prosecution) admitted their star witness failed a lie detector test and that they withheld that information from the defense.

On another thread, Stinger pointed out that even though she got released, she ain't no angel. And after reading the source he provided, I would have to agree. But you both still p!ss me off. Then again, I'm no angel either.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kandahar said:
And I can't believe that someone claiming to be a libertarian is suggesting that the state should have the power to kill people, under circumstances that you acknowledge will do nothing to protect the citizenry from force or fraud.

Oh, don't worry, a libertarian capable of stating his moral premises has no difficulty in understanding the concept of state-sanctioned capital punishment. It's totally consistent with any moral philosophy.


Kandahar said:
Why should the state have the right to execute people for the purpose of shedding "tears for the victims," or for vengeance?

States don't have rights. No one, no group, no government, not even animals, PETA kooks not-withstanding, have rights.

The only thing that can be proven to exist is power.

The correct phrasing of your question that would reflect this reality is:

"Why should the state have the authority to execute people, for whatever purpose whatsoever?"

And the answer to that question complex, but using small words, just for you, it boils down to:

1) The criminal surrendered his freedom from physical harm when he committed acts of physical violence on others. You may call this "eye-for-eye-teeth justice" if you like, but it's also a variant on the Golden Rule, ie, treating others as they treat others.

2) From (1), it's the will of the people that this be so. They surrendered their individual freedom for violent self-defense to the state in exchange for a standardized code of justice that enhances the stability of their society. The Orestaia is very illuminating, you really should read it. Look under "Aeschylus".

3) This may be too complex an idea for some to grasp, but it's the humane thing to do. It's totally inhumane to keep a man in prison for the rest of his natural life. Its a totally cruel and unusual thing to do. Would you keep your dog locked in a cage for his entire life because he bites visciously, or would you take him out and shoot him? Convicted murderers have far less value to society than any random dog, right? So why should a murderer be kept forever?

4) And a minor point, to be sure. Why should the victim's family be taxed to support the author of their distress in lavish comfort the rest of his natural life?

Kandahar said:
Bottom line is that there is no practical or philosophical reason for the death penalty to exist. Arguments in favor of the death penalty tend to be entirely based on emotion, of the "this murdering mother****er needs to die" variety.

See? Just proved you wrong. There's no practical or philosophical reason to keep a murderer alive. Just emotion. Take the murderer apart as quickly as possible and return his elements to the compost heap so they can be more quickly used to fertilize something useful, like weeds.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
Executions are done in our name (ie., People vs ...) and I personnally don't won't people being killed in my name. This is probably not the best example I could have used. The court can't prove her guilty or innocent. Her old man was up on the same charges. But he was executed on those very same charges that she has been released on. I've got a big problem with that. They didn't prove he was a murderer. They (the prosecution) admitted their star witness failed a lie detector test and that they withheld that information from the defense.

On another thread, Stinger pointed out that even though she got released, she ain't no angel. And after reading the source he provided, I would have to agree. But you both still p!ss me off. Then again, I'm no angel either.


Hate to tell you this, Bill, but I'm perfectly capable of dropping the trap door, letting the guillotine blade go, or squeezing the trigger when I need to. Death and dying's no big deal.

I'm not going to get all upset because some unnamed broad didn't get convicted though her husband did. Nor am I going to pretend that there's no injustice in the criminal system.

I'm just going to say that it was nice to hear that Tookie took it hard but he took it anyway.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
Hate to tell you this, Bill, but I'm perfectly capable of dropping the trap door, letting the guillotine blade go, or squeezing the trigger when I need to. Death and dying's no big deal.

I'm not going to get all upset because some unnamed broad didn't get convicted though her husband did. Nor am I going to pretend that there's no injustice in the criminal system.

I'm just going to say that it was nice to hear that Tookie took it hard but he took it anyway.
Well then thank you for helping make this nation as barbaric as it is.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, don't worry, a libertarian capable of stating his moral premises has no difficulty in understanding the concept of state-sanctioned capital punishment. It's totally consistent with any moral philosophy.

Not really, as you're granting the state a power that is simply not necessary. Doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
1) The criminal surrendered his freedom from physical harm when he committed acts of physical violence on others. You may call this "eye-for-eye-teeth justice" if you like, but it's also a variant on the Golden Rule, ie, treating others as they treat others.

This is a variant of the emotional "kill this murdering mother****er" argument. If the state's only purpose is to protect its people from force and fraud, it has no business doling out "eye-for-eye-teeth justice" when simple incarceration will protect people just as well.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
2) From (1), it's the will of the people that this be so. They surrendered their individual freedom for violent self-defense to the state in exchange for a standardized code of justice that enhances the stability of their society. The Orestaia is very illuminating, you really should read it. Look under "Aeschylus".

"It's the will of the people" is a pretty lame excuse for ANY policy. Justifying your personal views by saying that the majority supports you will come back to bite you in the ass if public opinion shifts against you. It doesn't answer the question of WHY the state needs this power.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
3) This may be too complex an idea for some to grasp, but it's the humane thing to do. It's totally inhumane to keep a man in prison for the rest of his natural life. Its a totally cruel and unusual thing to do. Would you keep your dog locked in a cage for his entire life because he bites visciously, or would you take him out and shoot him? Convicted murderers have far less value to society than any random dog, right? So why should a murderer be kept forever?

I'm not opposed to prison-lifers being allowed to end their lives if they want to. But if you're going to argue this from a humanitarian perspective, you may as well let each prisoner decide for himself which is more humane.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
4) And a minor point, to be sure. Why should the victim's family be taxed to support the author of their distress in lavish comfort the rest of his natural life?

I'd hardly call a 7x7 prison cell and daily visits from Bubba to be "lavish comfort." But regardless, this argument ignores the obvious fact that the legal expenses associated with capital cases cost the taxpayers more money than just keeping someone incarcerated for their entire life. And if your rebuttal is "We should kill them sooner," keep in mind the fact that the reason it takes so long is because the defendant has the right to exhaust his legal appeals and take advantage of every opportunity to prove his innocence that the law affords him.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Now, if you're not capable of writing your thoughts so others can read your words and derive your intended meaning from them, you should stop writing on public walls until you learn how to express yourself clearly.


Here we go again, I asked you to reread my statement, and offered you a clue to its’ meaning, and your pride prevented you from doing so.

For your enlightenment, I will again restate my statement, and rewrite it two more ways, and maybe you will finally catch on.

"I also think, a state executed by Moral Men, is that which secures the blessings of liberty, and should those Blessings be violated, offer an impartial means of [redress], while never violating those Blessings themselves."

In My Opinion, a government that may be called "moral" is one run by Moral Men; such a government will seek to secure the Blessings of Liberty, and if the Blessings are violated, such government will afford parties to the violation (that means both victim and violator) an impartial forum for correcting the violation, and during this process the government will not violate the Blessings.

It is my belief, that government controlled by moral men, will protect rights, and if another person or the government itself violates those rights, provide a remedy, while refraining from any other violation of rights.

"That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Declaration of Independence.

The DoI sentiments are that moral governments, operating with the just consent of the government, will protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This in effect is a morally operated government. I added, that morally operated governments, will also offer a means for the redress of rights violations (courts) and not behave immorally.

So, I have re-explained a single sentence you could not grasp, though I asked you, yet you refused the attempt. It should be a clue, that if you draw from something I said, that I had not intended, and after my own reviewing of the statement alludes to nothing of the effect which you responded, that if would be incumbent upon you, to reread the statement, carefully, and seek a different conclusion.

If I said 2+2=4, and you responded, "Why would 4 be equal to pi?" Clearly, I would review my own statement, to ensure, as I had with others, that I had not made a mistake. I have been able to rewrite the sentence two other ways and offer similar sentiments by another author. I still see no portion of the statement that concerns state liability for another's crime.

===
The government is a tool. Without a person to operate the law, who will police it, prosecute it, judge it, author it, repeal it, amend it or be subject to it? A government without men to operate It, does nothing. A hammer without men to operate it, does nothing.

Because you insist that magically government is different from any other tool does not make it so.

Show me where I was inconsistent? I have not been, only you have not be consistent, as one familiar with libertarian thought, in applying that theme, to what I have stated. You thought you had a "gotcha moment" and you were excited to use the "you're not a libertarian" line. You pride blinded you, and prevented you from seeing your own mistake. I have searched and searched to see if I said something wrong, I reread that statement numerous times, and found only one character missing, in the word “redess”.

Can you understand it now?

Good governments protect rights, assist in redressing grievances, and don't violate rights. we clear?
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Red_Dave said:
well the murder rate in the uk has quadrupled since we aboilished it so i am inclined to say yes

Thank you and its actually gone down here.......
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I can tell you one thing for sure........Tookie Williams is deterred....He will never murder anyone again...........
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kandahar said:
"It's the will of the people" is a pretty lame excuse for ANY policy. Justifying your personal views by saying that the majority supports you will come back to bite you in the ass if public opinion shifts against you. It doesn't answer the question of WHY the state needs this power.

It's because I'm being lazy. It's about time this thread got put back on it's rails, anyway.

The fact of that matter is that a properly applied death penalty is a deterrent just like any other form of punishment. Now, "deterent" and "properly applied" have to be defined and agreed to before the train can begin rolling again.

A deterent is an act or a threat of an action intended to dissuade behavior deemed undesirable by the deterring power. Behavioral modification lives on deterence and reward. Give the monkey electric shock when he touches yellow, give him food when he touches red. Before long he never eats another banana and loves tomatoes.

People are animals. Their behaviors are susceptible to similar modifications, except since people are usually smarter than monkeys, they can learn by watching other people get shocked and don't have to lick the electrodes themselves. I mean, when was the last time you peed on an electric fence? You've probably never done it but you just know it wouldn't be fun. Deterrents work, when applied correctly.

So we get to defining "properly applied". People learn, usually after one lesson at most, to not stick their fingers in light sockets. In fact, I expect most people have never stuck their finger in a live socket. It's one of our most helpful traits as a species that we learn a lot from observing others, and we can even imagine situations without having to witness them first hand.

A properly applied deterrent is when the power to the light socket is always on. Everyone that sticks their finger in gets zapped. No exceptions.

An improperly applied deterrent is when some people have rubber gloves, or if some people know how to turn the power on and off, or if the power only comes on randomly.

A properly applied capital punishment system fries all persons guilty of committing the same crime without exception.

Today's criminals often have rubber gloves, or, as in the case of OJ, they can turn the power on and off, or the system simply lets some through and not others. It's not done right.

If you argue that because it's not done right (uniformly) capital punishment should be abolished, I will agree. Not because of any presumed immorality in capital punishment itself, or any flaw in the theory of deterrence, but because it can't be called justice if it's not shared equally.



Kandahar said:
I'm not opposed to prison-lifers being allowed to end their lives if they want to. But if you're going to argue this from a humanitarian perspective, you may as well let each prisoner decide for himself which is more humane.

I never held the notion that the condemned man "cheats" the executioner by committing suicide. The state wanted him dead, he's dead. Good enough for me.

But as for letting the prisoner decide if he should be executed or not, no. The criminal surrendered the freedom to make life choices when he committed his crime, and that freedom is not returned to him until he's released from custody. If he's been awarded a death sentence, too bad. If he wanted to remain free he shouldn't have committed his crime.

Libertarian freedoms apply to people that follow libertarian rules of conduct. Punishment for violating the code of conduct has to carry penalties related to the code. By harming another you've impinged on his freedom, and your own freedom is forfeit as a result. Killing is the worst possible impingement on anyone's freedom, hence killing should carry the most extreme punishments.

Kandahar said:
I'd hardly call a 7x7 prison cell and daily visits from Bubba to be "lavish comfort." But regardless, this argument ignores the obvious fact that the legal expenses associated with capital cases cost the taxpayers more money than just keeping someone incarcerated for their entire life.

The old "gee it's cheaper to let them live" argument, manufactured by the people forcing all the legal expenses to happen in the first place.

And yeah, having your own private 7x7 cell with cable and no visits from Tyrone is "lavish comfort" when they should be dead and buried.

Kandahar said:
And if your rebuttal is "We should kill them sooner," keep in mind the fact that the reason it takes so long is because the defendant has the right to exhaust his legal appeals and take advantage of every opportunity to prove his innocence that the law affords him.

So? Shorten the number of appeals, impose serious penalties, including prison time for prosecutors, police officers, witnesses, and defense attorneys that tamper, hide, or otherwise inhibit evidence or testimony that impedes the open and honest course of the trial and the accused's guarantees of justice.

Fast track all capital punishment appeals, placing them always at the head of the line, like a school principal going through the student chow line. Bring to an end the numerous and repetive appeals on technicalities.

End the nonsense by punishing judges that issue stays based on crap. There was one execution in California, about 12 years ago, where the US Supreme Court had to announce that the Ninth Circuit no longer had jurisdiction and ordered the execution to proceed because the Ninny Circus had started to issue groundless desperation stays just because defense attorneys asked them too.

But it's courts like the Ninny Circus that guarantees that capital punishment will never be the effective deterrent it could be.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow,

A lot going on in this post, and I have some points and questions for you.

Ok, First, recognize even our legal system establishes the rule of judgment to be "beyond a reasonable doubt." This phrase is very different from "with certainty," isn't it? It's an indication that all human being suffer from imperfect or incomplete information. What you seems to have espoused, is the perfect death penalty deterrent system, one in which there is always certainty and justice is met. Of course, the death penalty isn't about Justice. Justice seeks a return to balance, the scales evening out. The death penalty does no such thing.

For a hypothetical, let's say we have a certainty in that a criminal committed a murder. 100% no doubt. (play along, it's a fictional hypothetical). OK, so the victim is dead, the victim's family lost a member, the community lost a citizen, and the state lost a tax payer. So here we have four injured groups, possibly even more. The death penalty will not bring the victim back to life, will not replace the family member, will not replace the citizen and will not pay for taxes. It will not redress the economic losses in any of these either.

Locking up the criminal also not even recoup economic or monetary losses, let alone killing the criminal. The Victim's estate may be taxed, the victim's family taxed, the community taxed, and the funds of the tax revenues reduced to pay for the punishments. This is a second layer of victimization, a result of the one crime.

In all of this, there is no return to balance, and not even a reasonable attempt. Vengeance and convenience are served by our "Criminal justice" system, not Justice.

People often say of the executed "They got what they deserved." That very well may be true, but the victims were victimized twice, and the victims did not deserve it.

Justice can never be served by Death, again only Vengeance or Convenience can. The people who want killers dead, will have their vengeance. The people who are concerned the killer may kill again, have a convenient option to assure that the killer doesn’t.

---
Concerning difference between electric shock and death, is that most people familiar with any electricity, including static electrical discharges, are familiar with the pain it can produce. NO PERSON ALIVE is really familiar with death. Look at the way so many societies and cultures treat it: it is a release from suffering, it is an avenue toward suffering. a continual occurrence felt by the soul repeatedly, it’s a deprivation of a cherished gift, it results in nothing, it's an eternal restful sleep, etc, etc, etc.

Death is wholly unknown, and as a result, those who never experienced death never think they are going to die. Whereas those who have experienced pain, DO think they are going to feel pain. With a few exceptions, most killers first off, never really expect to get caught, and those that do, again, don't think apprehension will result in death. However, there are those, that EXPECT their acts to result in death, who STILL continue the crime. Some even use the crime as a mechanism to produce their own deaths.

It is my firm belief, that those who expect death as a result of their crime, are above all the most dangerous among us, particularly the suicide terrorists and "going down shooting" criminals.
---

The government punishing the government... hehe. More appropriately rephrased: agents of the government punishing other agents of the government. No doubt, it happens occasionally, but the track record has been abysmal to say the least. History and legal records overflow with agents of the state refusing to censure or admonish, let alone prosecute, violations by other state agents. Even when there is clear indication of corruption or law breaking, often the government criminals are simply "let go" or pardoned, or even afforded immunity from their crime. Sometimes, the agents will even REWARD the offending party, with a promotion, a vacation, or a nice shiny metal object to pin on their chest. Maybe even all of the above, a check, a pat on the back, and “A Job well done!”

---
The seemingly endless layers of appeals, are in part (if not totally), a result of the governments unwillingness to prosecute the Police, Prosecutors or judges that violate the law. Remember, very often, these people are FRIENDS. And why shouldn't they be? They are all members of the same gang after all.

It wouldn't surprise me, if every higher level federal office or agent was in violation of some more serious law. From time to time, the state throws the people a bone and has an investigation, maybe a trial (in which little or no new information is presented publicly as to the scope of the transgressions), and the convicted falls on the sword, does a few months, and receives a pardon when the public is back in front of the TV. Even more rarely, a bad guy stays in jail, but it's usually because the powers that be, really didn't want him in the gang anymore anyway.
---

So, my questions.
What makes you think perfect knowledge will be available, in all cases, that afford a death sentence?

What makes you think Justice is actually delievered upon execution of a convict?

What makes you think friends will prosecute their freinds?

What makes you think, the power over life and death, doesn't corrupt?

There is no real need to answer, they are rhetoical, but if you want to try, go ahead.
 
Last edited:

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
GarzaUK said:
You are a christain George and a faithful one at that. Christains in their day to day lives try to be as morale as Jesus Christ.

Do you think Jesus Christ would support the death pelanty??

I just find it unchristain when christains support the execution of others, I can't remember Jesus teaching that.

Thank you for saying that I am a faithful Christian.

Look, I know you're saying but I just feel that Jesus would want us to enact just punishment upon murderers as a means of delivering justice to the victims' families.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
George_Washington said:
Thank you for saying that I am a faithful Christian.

Look, I know you're saying but I just feel that Jesus would want us to enact just punishment upon murderers as a means of delivering justice to the victims' families.


See my post, right abouve the one you made (Which I made to scarecrow) about why Justice is not served. It touched the surface, but execution, even incarceration, do LITTLE for Justice. How can the death of one Bad person ever be just as the death of one Good person?

Just and Justice are words used like an equals sing. They compare things. The death of a crimminal (as guilty as possible) is just not the same as the death of a goos person.

In mythology, Themis (often reflected as Lady justice, the Blindfoled woman carrying the scales and sword) would offer a decision, and if they descion was not abided by, Nemisis would enact the wrathful retribution.
 
Last edited:

Columbusite

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
808
Reaction score
6
Location
Columbus
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
libertarian_knight said:
Two words: Drug War

The Drug War is at the center of a great deal of social ills, including homocides. It is a nexus, the center of a spider's web.

HUGE Portions of the Murders commited in the USA (not to mention cop killings and cops killing) are a result of the Drug war by means of drug gangs, black market pricing (which heavily increase killings for money to buy drugs), and other associated factors. (see DOJ statistics)

Gangs largely exist because of drugs and the black market profits. Not to mention, the Black Market Profits also aid terrorism. As much as 40-60% of major city murders are because of Drug Gang related activiteis alone (see LA crime stats for starters).

It makes crimminals out of not violent citizens. (I don't recall exactly the following state, so I am using a broad range). Betweem 1/5 and 1/3 of Prison populations are filled with non-violent drug offenders, most without ANY history of violence EVER. (check the Bueau of Prisons, and DOJ)

Prisons are filled with soo many non violent crimminals, that often VIOLENT crimminals are being released to make room, because drug laws carry MANDATORY sentences, whereas rape, assault, robbery and murder do not. This has also lead to kickbacks and corruption by Government officials, who are lobbied and bribed by prison builders, prison workers, and Private Prison operators. (see Rockefeller Dug Laws for NY state)

It a source of Local, State and federal Corruption. Not a year goes by when I don't hear or read about numerous City officials and particulalry police officers and detectives being caught as participants in drug rings. Federal agencies have been often implicated in buyig, selling, and distributing drugs for other illict activities. (see: Oliver North. CIA.)

The "necessity" of fighting drugs has led to tremendous strain on police and prosecution resources that either result in ever increasing taxes, or poorer service from public agents, most often both. Polcing spend so much time tracking and prosecuting non-violent drug offenders that a significant portion of societies greatest crime, murder, remain unsolved or under-invesitgated. It's even worse for violent non-murders (assaults, rapes) and property crimes. Some cities have property crime resolution rates as LOW as 6%. Public Defenders are often overworked or understaffed, that they can not give adequate defenses/ Prosecutors are also often overworked that they are often lured to skirting the rules, even breaking the law themselves, in order to secure a conviction, and move on to the next case. Court systems are overbooked and judges and staffers over worked that fair trials are seriously in jeopardy in this country. (not sure if there are any stats kept, often read it in the news though)

The Black Market prices allow gangs to afford to purchase guns, and motivates them to steal guns, or motivates others to steal or sell guns to gangs, OUTSIDE LEGAL CHANNELS. This increase in gun running and resulting gun violence (even violence over gun smuggling) is often used as a reason to further infringe upon the American's Right to Bear Arms. (see DOJ, Democratic Party, and Second Amendment to the US Constitution)

The prohibition of drugs has lead to increased potency and unclean cutting. During the years of prohibition's major start in the united state (1960's) and even until now, drugs are becomeing more and more potent, because the more potent the drug, the less drug needed to be transported, and cutting can be done at local distributions. The less drug transported, the harder to catch. The distrubution network, through malice, greed or ineptidue will often realse unclean or "unsafe" drug with irregular potencies or impurities that can lead to permanent injuries or fatalies. Furthermore, increade potencies are more likely to lead to addiction (Pepto Bismol contains opiates, as do many other anti-diarheals, but in such low doses they pose no risk of addiction, and can be sold Over the counter), Opium, certainly addictive, is by no means as addictive as Heroin. The same is true of Cocaine, which Coca farmers regulars chew the leaves of the coca plant, and suffer no addiction. the reason "hard drugs" are as hard as they are, is because of prohibition. (see NIH, possibly CDC, and DEA)

Prohibition has cut of many Medical Avenues for treatment. Doctors' can lose their licences if they attempt to treat addictions, at least without prior state approval, and possibly a new crimminal record for the patient. (ask your doctor about the legal implications, Doc may know)

Prohibition has been used as an excuse to violate people's Property Rights, by siezing homes, cars, or anything even SUSPECTED of being part of the drug trade. Even upon exhonortion by a jury, the state keeps the property, and the acquitted must sue the state to get it back. Which is often not likely, ebcause either most people don't have enough money, or they spent so much in being acquitted that they can no longer afford further suit, by which time the state may have auction off the goods already anyway. (see asset forefieture and 4th, 5th, and 7th amaendments)

Normal, peaceful citizens are often required to associate with the violent dregs of society, in order to attain drugs, or satisfy their addiction. Prohibition itself, is the GATEWAY to violence and addiction.

I literlaly could wring a book, and some day may, on the nexus of prohibition, and it's HUGE implications. I have literally, only scratched the surface.

Drug abuse, drug addiction, and addles minds are by no means things we as a society should promote. However, the alternative: Violence, Corruption, Abuse of power, Violation of the rights numerous civil and Consitutional rights, economic costs, increased taxation, growth of central power, Medical costs, International Conflict, Medical allfiction exasperated by restricted treatemnts, and a myriad of other factors, are not worth the price or prohibition.

What started out as two words, obviously went on a great deal. The Two words are central to a significant portion of many of the societal problem we face in the, including murder, for which the death penalty is oft used.

That's for the indepth response. I am totally against the drug war and can see how it works in my own city. A while back some college students were killed, apparantly because they didn't have enough money and the drug dealer wasn't happy about that. It was probably just pot and it is just a ridiculous situation that never should have happened. Nevermind all the innocent people that get caught in the crossfire. All too often a gang member retaliates against another by pulling up and shooting randomly in to their enemy's home usually not killing their intended target, but a little girl who was watching TV (also happened here). But who cares, they're black so it's their problem. :doh: I don't know if you've watched it, but Penn & Teller's show, Bulls**t, did an episode on pot. Apparantly , the federal government itself is distributing pot to a slimming number of people with debilitating illnesses, yet won't bother looking at how it's helped these people. One guy regulary smokes in front of the white house to protest. But like he said, they'll just wait for him to die and ignore this.
 

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
69,516
Reaction score
15,437
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Red_Dave said:
well the murder rate in the uk has quadrupled since we aboilished it so i am inclined to say yes

It that per capita or just number of murders? What other factors might have affected this, i.e. terrorism, poverty...
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Columbusite said:
That's for the indepth response. I am totally against the drug war and can see how it works in my own city. A while back some college students were killed, apparantly because they didn't have enough money and the drug dealer wasn't happy about that. It was probably just pot and it is just a ridiculous situation that never should have happened. Nevermind all the innocent people that get caught in the crossfire. All too often a gang member retaliates against another by pulling up and shooting randomly in to their enemy's home usually not killing their intended target, but a little girl who was watching TV (also happened here). But who cares, they're black so it's their problem. :doh: I don't know if you've watched it, but Penn & Teller's show, Bulls**t, did an episode on pot. Apparantly , the federal government itself is distributing pot to a slimming number of people with debilitating illnesses, yet won't bother looking at how it's helped these people. One guy regulary smokes in front of the white house to protest. But like he said, they'll just wait for him to die and ignore this.

RARELy do people get kileld over pot, it was more likely coke (which I only recently learned is quite fricken available on campuses, personal expirience). I always thought it was something wallstreet types and bankers did, but yeah, college kids too.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Look you guys, the problem herein lies not in the death penalty but in our legal system. The reason why innocent people end up on dealth row is because either:

1.) They can't afford good lawyers.

2.) The judges are morons and don't allow key witnesses and/or potential evidence to be admitted in court.

3.) The jury are idiots.


What I suggest we do is not eliminate the dealth penalty but instead, work to reform our legal system. I think we should put tougher restrictions on becoming a judge, screen jury members better, and have more oversight on trials.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
George_Washington said:
Look you guys, the problem herein lies not in the death penalty but in our legal system. The reason why innocent people end up on dealth row is because either:

1.) They can't afford good lawyers.

2.) The judges are morons and don't allow key witnesses and/or potential evidence to be admitted in court.

3.) The jury are idiots.


What I suggest we do is not eliminate the dealth penalty but instead, work to reform our legal system. I think we should put tougher restrictions on becoming a judge, screen jury members better, and have more oversight on trials.

The Jury aren't idiots. It's Just often, Juries are not informed of their rights and responsibilities as jurors. If all that were necessary was a CONCIOUSLESS application of fact to law, we could write computer programs. Very often also, there is a prejudice ont he part of the juror to think "well, the government wouldn't be bringing a trial, unless they ALREADY thought he was guilty." And it's Prosecutors and judges that help to foster that mentality. Judges will also even refuse to allow jurors to uderstand the full scope of their rights. Jury Nulification (the absolute right to aquitt ANYONE even if the Juror believes the defendant is guilty) is a right long established in our courts and laws, but defense attornies aren't allowed to tell the jurors that, only judges can. And judges purposefully do not.

Jurors are not idiots, they are kept ignorant, to favor the state.
 
Top Bottom