POLL: Muslims, you crazy!

[sgreger1]

I am actually not really presenting any answers, other than when asked. I am saying that the death penalty does not fix anything. It does not reduce the crime rates, in fact in almost every state that has a death penalty there are higher murder rates (the only crime that can get the death penalty) per capita than states that don't have a death penalty. It is completely in effective. This is a fact.

Grasping at straws is bringing in the sex offender list and all sorts of other items that technically have nothing to do with the death penalty. I think I did bring up the subject as well at one point because I know it is another one that gets people's emotions up where the recidivism statistic is often used in accurately.

You know I actually used to be very much for the death penalty. My mind got changed one day. I just hope my heart isn't ever challenged over my beliefs on it by something terrible happening to a loved one of my own. I understand the base human need for revenge. It is an animalistic desire we all have. However as it has been said, if you go out for revenge, you should start by digging two graves.

Ken

It's not about revenge. Revenge would be allowing the father of a murdered daughter to execute the criminal. What we have is punishment that fits the crime. you go on a killing spree, you lose your life. I don't see why that is somehow more unjust than giving them a few years in prison and allowing them to go repeat their offense. It seems that it is more just to kill these criminals than to use my tax money to house and feed them and provide them with $13,000 in medical care each year.

[sgreger1]

It is fictional, but still relevant. No matter how you look at it, to discuss recidivism as the rational you are discussing future action not past. So if it is a room full of convicts or a room full of random people has no statistical consequence to the logic point at hand.

Ken

No it DOES matter. In your analogy you are grabbing up random innocent people and then saying that statistically some of them way commit a crime and therefore they should all be killed even though there is no evidence against any of them. In my analogy they are all criminals who have been deemed guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.





I see where you are getting at. If only we fixed everything to where it was perfect, only really bad people would go to jail. I would like to see that as well but we know this will never happen. If this is the train of logic we choose to follow, than I propose the following solution: If nazi aliens just came to earth and took our rapists, than everything would be perfect. Do you disagree?

/It doesn't matter because it's a completely fictional scenario that is not likely to occur. Just like letting non-biolent offenders out of jail.

[devilock76]

It's not about revenge. Revenge would be allowing the father of a murdered daughter to execute the criminal. What we have is punishment that fits the crime. you go on a killing spree, you lose your life. I don't see why that is somehow more unjust than giving them a few years in prison and allowing them to go repeat their offense. It seems that it is more just to kill these criminals than to use my tax money to house and feed them and provide them with $13,000 in medical care each year.

Why do you keep bringing up repeat offenders? I mean haven't we covered that enough as a poor argument. Prevention is not what it is, revenge is not what it is (so you say), and I promise you prison can be way more punishment than death.

As for the costs:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692...me_and_courts/

Ken

[sgreger1]

I am beginning to seriously doubt your reading comprehension abilities. First off for the murder would be the only reason he could face the death penalty. So really in someways the rapes are inconsequential. I think that the person in question can be in prison forever and ever, with no hope of release unless there becomes irrefutable evidence that the person is innocent.

Trust me I am not saying such offenders should be released like that.

Ken

But in essence that IS what you are saying. In the current system, very few people with life sentences actually fulfill the entire sentence. Rapists and murderers often get out after a certain amount of time. Therefore giving sentences to them as opposed to the death penalty will result in them being released. Hence if you suggest prison sentences over capital punishment, you are advocating that they be released after they are "rehabilitated".

You cannot respond with the whole "if we got rid of non-violent offenders for our jails" etc etc because that won't happen. And even if we did, they would still let these people out. These idiots believe you can be rehabilitated after you just raped a child.

[devilock76]

No it DOES matter. In your analogy you are grabbing up random innocent people and then saying that statistically some of them way commit a crime and therefore they should all be killed even though there is no evidence against any of them. In my analogy they are all criminals who have been deemed guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

I see where you are getting at. If only we fixed everything to where it was perfect, only really bad people would go to jail. I would like to see that as well but we know this will never happen. If this is the train of logic we choose to follow, than I propose the following solution: If nazi aliens just came to earth and took our rapists, than everything would be perfect. Do you disagree?

/It doesn't matter because it's a completely fictional scenario that is not likely to occur. Just like letting non-biolent offenders out of jail.

In both analogies you are trying to prevent a crime that at the time the people in question are innocent of the future crime. It is basically the Minority Report premise. If you use recidivism as the rational than the past crime is not why we are doing it, it is the future crime so therefore only that matters in the analogy and hence why it is relevant.

Don't be lame. If you got off of your soap box for a second you would understand the logical argument as to why only the future crime matters if you want to use recidivism as the measure.

Ken

[sgreger1]

Why do you keep bringing up repeat offenders? I mean haven't we covered that enough as a poor argument. Prevention is not what it is, revenge is not what it is (so you say), and I promise you prison can be way more punishment than death.

As for the costs:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692...me_and_courts/

Ken

I am well aware of how expensive it is to kill someone. That's a simple fix: Don't let them sit on death row while we pay for their meals/housing/health care for 10 years, and don't make ti fancy. Just shoot them. Bullets are cheap, could do the whole thing for like $5.


Repeat offenders or not, the first offense is bad enough. Rape a child once and I advocate for your death. End of story. I do not believe in rehabilitation for these types, nor do I think they deserve rehabilitation. They already messed up and now they must be punished.

[sgreger1]

In both analogies you are trying to prevent a crime that at the time the people in question are innocent of the future crime. It is basically the Minority Report premise. If you use recidivism as the rational than the past crime is not why we are doing it, it is the future crime so therefore only that matters in the analogy and hence why it is relevant.

Don't be lame. If you got off of your soap box for a second you would understand the logical argument as to why only the future crime matters if you want to use recidivism as the measure.

Ken

Okay, than take future crime out of it. Forget what they may or may not do in the future. The point is that you have a room full of people who were convicted of a crime and given due process and a fair trial. All those people should be killed instead of living on prison-welfare at my expense for the rest of their lives.

[devilock76]

But in essence that IS what you are saying. In the current system, very few people with life sentences actually fulfill the entire sentence. Rapists and murderers often get out after a certain amount of time. Therefore giving sentences to them as opposed to the death penalty will result in them being released. Hence if you suggest prison sentences over capital punishment, you are advocating that they be released after they are "rehabilitated".

You cannot respond with the whole "if we got rid of non-violent offenders for our jails" etc etc because that won't happen. And even if we did, they would still let these people out. These idiots believe you can be rehabilitated after you just raped a child.

Well I don't believe that. I am not wanting the person to not die to get out. I want them in prison for life for two reasons, two reasons that a corpse cannot provide.

1. If it should be found that they are innocent it is easier to do when they are alive. Not only does this give them a chance but it increases the chance of catching the REAL criminal, I consider this important.

2. The knowledge obtained from studying them can help with finding ways in the future to have real crime prevention and identifying danger signs of such deviant behavior.

As for well what we got is crap pile A or B, well I am going to make a new pile if I can, and heck with A and B. I have just never been the type to settle on a bad solution because the other is not much better. Maybe you are.

Ken

[devilock76]

I am well aware of how expensive it is to kill someone. That's a simple fix: Don't let them sit on death row while we pay for their meals/housing/health care for 10 years, and don't make ti fancy. Just shoot them. Bullets are cheap, could do the whole thing for like $5.


Repeat offenders or not, the first offense is bad enough. Rape a child once and I advocate for your death. End of story. I do not believe in rehabilitation for these types, nor do I think they deserve rehabilitation. They already messed up and now they must be punished.

So in short even more innocent people could die. People who committed no crime. That is what shortening the process would do. And you are fine with killing innocent people to save money. Yeah that is a real good solution.

Ken

[devilock76]

Okay, than take future crime out of it. Forget what they may or may not do in the future. The point is that you have a room full of people who were convicted of a crime and given due process and a fair trial. All those people should be killed instead of living on prison-welfare at my expense for the rest of their lives.

Well we already refuted the cost aspect but your answer was speed it up to kill more innocent people. Blood lust makes it hard to think, doesn't it?

Ken

[sgreger1]

So in short even more innocent people could die. People who committed no crime. That is what shortening the process would do. And you are fine with killing innocent people to save money. Yeah that is a real good solution.

Ken

Okay so I think we've ran into the proverbial brick wall as far as this conversation is concerned.

2 scenarios:


1) Innocents sometimes get caught up in this and wrongfully sentenced. We cannot allow this to happen and therefore should outlaw the death penalty.

2) If we outlaw the death penalty, the real criminals will instead get prison sentences and will likely be released early and reoffend. No justice for any party involved, as innocents will just rot in prison for life instead of receiving a quick death and murderers will be free to roam our streets.

[sgreger1]

Well we already refuted the cost aspect but your answer was speed it up to kill more innocent people. Blood lust makes it hard to think, doesn't it?

Ken

No, don't speed it up to kill more innocents, speed it up so swift justice can be brought to those who have commited a crime. Nothing can stop innocents being convicted of crimes, that is a flaw with the legal system which will not be fixed any time soon. We cannot put our entire legal system on hold just because an innocent might be found guilty. We prescribe one thing to resolve issues such as this: A fair trial with a jury of your peers, due process. If that criteria is satisfied than you are guilty as far as the legal system is concerned. We cannot stop punishing criminals just because our system cannot prove 100% that someone is guilty. If that were the case, than no one would ever answer for their crimes.

[devilock76]

Okay so I think we've ran into the proverbial brick wall as far as this conversation is concerned.

2 scenarios:


1) Innocents sometimes get caught up in this and wrongfully sentenced. We cannot allow this to happen and therefore should outlaw the death penalty.

2) If we outlaw the death penalty, the real criminals will instead get prison sentences and will likely be released early and reoffend. No justice for any party involved, as innocents will just rot in prison for life instead of receiving a quick death and murderers will be free to roam our streets.

So let us fix the real problem then, the justice system, not the punishment system.

Ken

[devilock76]

No, don't speed it up to kill more innocents, speed it up so swift justice can be brought to those who have commited a crime. Nothing can stop innocents being convicted of crimes, that is a flaw with the legal system which will not be fixed any time soon. We cannot put our entire legal system on hold just because an innocent might be found guilty. We prescribe one thing to resolve issues such as this: A fair trial with a jury of your peers, due process. If that criteria is satisfied than you are guilty as far as the legal system is concerned. We cannot stop punishing criminals just because our system cannot prove 100% that someone is guilty. If that were the case, than no one would ever answer for their crimes.

That is easy to say till you are the innocent person. It was already said no one thinks of the victims till they are one. The same could be said of said scenario when an innocent person is the victim of the justice system. We cannot kill our way to a peaceful and civilized society.

Ken

[Joe234]

God damnit MyKislt, the whole intention of this thread is to rile up Tom until he posts something so completely off the wall about Islam that it will drag Roo into the thread, where Roo will then entertain me via argument with Tom until I have successfully completely my workday.

Please, good sir, some people have 8 hours to burn, and i'll be damned if I do it without Roo's assistance.






/back on topic

Hey Roo, I totally heard that Islamic people kill their first born as part of a sacrifice ritual that is aimed at destroying America because muslims hate our freedom. Debate.

The Muslims are controlled by Barack Obama and his secret fleet of Nazi spacecraft. Their base is hidden
in a Swedish Snus processing plant in Sweden. Their top General is reported to be a man named Julian Assange.