POLL: Muslims, you crazy!

[devilock76]

It is the right time for some serious legislation on gang membership. (Like lose a hand for your fist offense)! second, capital punishment!

Like the elected "gang" in Washington would vote for something that hurts them!

Ken

[tom502]

They don't have discussions like this in DPRK.

[devilock76]

They don't have discussions like this in DPRK.

I am sure they do, just not as overtly, and potentially with more consequences. Bottom line, do you find comparing with the worst justification for being less worse?!?

Ken

[tom502]

I suspect the crime rate, and gangs in DPRK is probably nothing.

[sgreger1]

I wasn't referring to war at all. This is something we should hold for our own citizens, that we won't murder them if they're innocent. And because things like zero doubt are never truly attainable there is no perfect guarantee that we can avoid such while having an active death penalty.

We could never prosecute anyone for a crime then. Then innocents everywhere must suffer an existence where these criminals are free to do as they please. In America you get a fair trial with a jury of your peers. If you win, you win, if you lose, you lose. Without it, 100% of criminals would be free and this place would look like Africa.

[sgreger1]

Ok so let me try to answer here. If we incarcerate someone or we kill them, whether or not they would or would want to commit the crime again they now cannot, because they are incarcerated or deceased. So as far as protecting the populace from this "danger to society" both solutions are equal. If we can agree on that then let us consider the innocent person wrongly convicted. If we incarcerate them and later find them innocent we can release them, we cannot undo the death penalty. Ergo the death penalty is a worse solution in the absence of a perfect and infallible justice system, correct?

If we can agree on both of those points then I think it is clear that although neither is a perfect solution, the overall risk associated with execution in our justice system as flawed as it is outweigh the risks of incarceration as a solution.

Ken

That's a trick question, the jails are too full to sentence everyone to life. They get out in 10 years, and commit the same crime again. What now? What if someone has committed rape 15 times? What if they have been released 5 times and each time commited the crime again. Can we kill them at that point? Can't throw them in jail for life because again, the jails are too packed.

[Roo]

They don't have discussions like this in DPRK.

Nor do they in countries who adhere to centuries-old religious texts detailing how each situation should be dealt with... Sharia! It's delightful how this thread, designed to get me and Tom riled up, comes around FULL CIRCLE. As Blue would say, Bazinga!

[devilock76]

I suspect the crime rate, and gangs in DPRK is probably nothing.

Let us for a second agree with your assumption, then at what cost to your freedom are you willing to go to reduce crime?

Ken

[texastorm]

I think we should not put innocent people in prison in the first place. How is imprisoning someone for life and less harsh than killing them.... both methods reduce the life to one of non production and irrelevance to society at large.

You cant defend your position on the death penalty based on the small percentage of innocents that will die. Unless your willing to also defend that percentages right to not be imprisoned wrongly in the first place. There are a lot of innocent people in prison, but no one leaves prison innocent.

[tom502]

"Our freedom" does not relate to our high crime, and overstocked prisons.

[devilock76]

That's a trick question, the jails are too full to sentence everyone to life. They get out in 10 years, and commit the same crime again. What now? What if someone has committed rape 15 times? What if they have been released 5 times and each time commited the crime again. Can we kill them at that point? Can't throw them in jail for life because again, the jails are too packed.

OK you are either picking a part pieces of all the replies or looking at one with a minute lens or just not reading. I have already stated that the over population solved by only putting VIOLENT offenders in jail. So if that is all that is in there that solves the over population problem either way right? So we can move on from that right?

Now like I said purely, if they are in jail they can't do it. I am not talking about the parole system, I am not talking about lenient time sentences. I am talking about where you would give someone death you would instead give life in jail no parole, that is the alternative. The other mess of our justice system aside let us look into that vacuum of a concept.

Now let us go forward and take the whole. So the problem with incarceration is people getting out again. Well one we have already talked about recidivism rates, heck you even posted the figures yet have not responded to my comments on those. But if the problem is lenient time sentences then fix that for these violent offenders.

Ken

[devilock76]

I think we should not put innocent people in prison in the first place. How is imprisoning someone for life and less harsh than killing them.... both methods reduce the life to one of non production and irrelevance to society at large.

You cant defend your position on the death penalty based on the small percentage of innocents that will die. Unless your willing to also defend that percentages right to not be imprisoned wrongly in the first place. There are a lot of innocent people in prison, but no one leaves prison innocent.

I would say it is easier to restore someone their freedom, than it is to restore them their life. Since restoring time lost is an impossibility no matter what how is it relevant to the conversation, other than you trying to angle around towards to "so kill them anyway."

Ken

[sgreger1]

The fact is it is rare anyone on that list repeats their crime.
Ken

FALE:

Repeat Offenders Account for 9 out of 10 Rapes on College Campuses ...

Outrage Growing over Repeat Sex Offenders - CBS Evening News - CBS ...



Recidivism among sex offenders is quite high, according to the United States Department of Justice. Although not all sex offenders reoffend, they are four times more likely than a criminal convicted of robbery, murder, assault or any other charge. Psychologists believe that recidivism is high among sex offenders because their desire to rape, molest or assault is a psychologically engrained predeliction.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...rs.html?cat=17


Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists.
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html




Because people like you would rather these people get prison sentences, thousands of rapists or sexual predators are released early on parole (instead of being executed) and re-offend every year. Be careful what you are advocating, the line of logic you subscribe to has gotten tens of thousands of children raped or molested. Stop standing up for criminals.

[tom502]

They should make the prisons actual rehabilitation camps, and make them work, not sit around and watch TV and play cards. Put them to work and teach them to be good citizens. The ones not in line to the gallows that is.

[devilock76]

"Our freedom" does not relate to our high crime, and overstocked prisons.

Actually yes it does. I mean look at the bill of rights, 5 of those amendments, half of them, relate to the rights of the accused and convicted.

Ken