First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Back on the ballots death penalty
Banned
7622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Pensacola
Offline
Posted 10/29/16
I support it and think we should speed it up.. you are guilty. take them out front and hang them same day. 3 felonies = death penalty. I solve americas crime problem really quick
5544 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Tacoma, WA. wind...
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

Kavalion wrote:


GrateSaiyaman wrote:

Capitol punishment has never served as a deterrent.

It cost between two and five times as much to execute someone as it does to lock them up for life.


Not exactly true. Highly publicized executions do have a very small, temporary effect on crime rates, perhaps too small to give much credit, but still statistically noticeable. Some methods of execution are also cheaper, but it would involve some questionable changes to the legal process in order to streamline it, as well as maybe using a bullet or noose instead of lethal injection.

Speaking personally, as evil as some criminals are, it doesn't matter to me whether they live in prison or die. There's only a tinge of regret felt for any surviving victims, because they probably would have felt some sense of satisfaction and resolution upon seeing the perpetrator die. I have to wonder if the cost of killing a criminal wouldn't end up being repaid by giving victims their closure so they can move on with life and be productive.


More than thirty years and many studies have pointed out that Capital punishment is not deterrent. The statistic that you are relying on has been proven false just by the simple fact that it takes a long time for most executions to occur after sentencing as well as a study at Dartmouth confirms that.
Therein lies the true finacial cost of execution, time.
Most states have an automatic repeal process that can take years to complete before the execution can take place, with massive amounts of money being spent on legal fees.
They used to have hanging as the preferred method of execution here in Washington State until a guy who was convicted of murdering two people decided to eat himself into obesity. It was ruled that the danger of him being decapitated was too great. They were not allowed to change his method of execution to lethal injection so his sentence was commuted to life without parole. If the state would have gave him a life sentence it would have save the taxpayers about a million dollars, twice what it would have cost to just keep him in jail.
They have firing squad executions in Utah . . . the burden is the same . . . legal fees.

There have been instances where the death penalty was the main motivations for murder.

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/study-says-no-evidence-that-death-penalty-deters-crime/2012/04/19/gIQAjS0WTT_story.html
33906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 11/9/16


Sorry about taking so long to respond, I forgot this notification was even here until I got out of the polls last night (I usually watch CR on my iPad). But now that I finally look at your response, it doesn't provide me any incentive towards responding anymore as I expressly stated that I'm not here to debate tons of individual points, which you then proceeded to do without even addressing, acknowledging, or respecting that sentiment. Plus, as I'm certain that my points withstand any criticisms you threw at them, I did not see any significant argument against them and so I don't really see an incentive to respond.

I thought I'd highlight the biggest single reason I refuse to go back and forth anymore, which sure enough occurs in the very first and last points in your previous comment: cognitive dissonance due to immediate expedience.


To make this simpler, if you don't trust the juries and prosecutors of the nation with your life, why should it be trusted with anyone's?


I personally do not find it convincing or persuasive in the least as it requires leaning on speculation entirely and emotion more than facts with relevant evidence.


Which is dissonant in that my arguments are based completely factually on numbers and statistics (whether you dispute them or not is irrelevant) while you appeal directly to emotion in the very first point you make; and all while being a null point anyways as I stated priorly that as I behave in a law-abiding way I do indeed trust the juries and prosecutors of the nation with my life. This is some serious projecting.

To conclude, I refuse to bicker back and forth with someone who does not analyze their own arguments for consistency or the lack thereof, and just asserts what is convenient at the direct moment while it directly contradicts what they say at a later moment. Your insistence on the usage of the fallacy of incomplete evidence and later insistence on it not having been used is staggering. And while I logically admit the flaws in the current system (which I've acknowledged is far from ideal), you still sit here arguing as if instituting your policy would magically come with none of its failings or moral dilemmas and refuse to acknowledge any of such.

Anyways, my argument from the get go has been extraordinarily consistent as far as I have been shown and can tell, so I will present it one more time in case anyone reading and reasoning along themselves needs reiteration for clarity: that the death penalty is moral in that it protects law and in most if not all cases it preserves innocent life, and that the points to evidence that are prison killings, witness killings, brutal killings, and a cornucopia of other manners I listed above in which a killer would be too much of a threat to others to be kept alive, and should instead be put down. I do not even know what your core beliefs are, as you refuse to formally expose them to criticism (one at a time, and never completely at once) or even acknowledge criticism on any one individually, so this has been extremely lopsided from the start, frankly not even fit for a high school debate (in which both people openly state their beliefs and why theirs is superior and the other is inferior).

Anyhow, I do not see any significant reasoning presented which I believe disproves or even casts serious doubt on any of those points, so again, I see no more value in this conversation and will leave. I hope you got something, even something small out of this conversation, I did at least somewhat myself and think my argument is at least a bit stronger than it was before.

Well I'm out, if you want to the last word is yours, if not that's cool too. So you know and so that I'm being upfront, that's my way of saying don't try to lure me or bait me into anything else. In the interest of fairness I do not expect you to not have any say against what I present but I will not stand for anything intending to make me look bad for leaving, or to attempt to snag me into staying. I've had too many people take pot shots at my back when I leave to not have learned that lesson, although I'm obviously not accusing you of having any intention of doing it yourself. I'd just rather make my intentions as clear as possible, and make sure that on the off-chance that it would happen unintentionally that you'd notice and reconsider.
22985 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 11/9/16
I think that killing innocent people is wrong, and that the removal of the threat via permanent incarceration is sufficient. That all there is to it. I mean, would you trust our justice system with the various flaws to carry an eternal punishment that can't be repealed? And we can't just say "If they are definitely guilty", because when that gavel hits, we are always 100% sure they are either guilty or innocent, even with faulty evidence.

6564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/9/16
I call into account the case of Orenthal James Simpson! "You can't squeeze the juice."~
70005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 11/9/16 , edited 11/9/16

cheapshotfail wrote:
it doesn't provide me any incentive towards responding anymore as I expressly stated that I'm not here to debate tons of individual points, which you then proceeded to do without even addressing, acknowledging, or respecting that sentiment.


I have no obligation to care about how you want me to respond. I respond in the manner I see most fit.


Plus, as I'm certain that my points withstand any criticisms you threw at them, I did not see any significant argument against them and so I don't really see an incentive to respond.


Then why thread necro and respond?


I thought I'd highlight the biggest single reason I refuse to go back and forth anymore, which sure enough occurs in the very first and last points in your previous comment: cognitive dissonance due to immediate expedience.

Which is dissonant in that my arguments are based completely factually on numbers and statistics (whether you dispute them or not is irrelevant) while you appeal directly to emotion in the very first point you make; and all while being a null point anyways as I stated priorly that as I behave in a law-abiding way I do indeed trust the juries and prosecutors of the nation with my life. This is some serious projecting


I see you happily removed the context in an attempt to gas light and mislead, go figure.

What numbers have you provided? None. Equally, my point was that I find the death penalty immoral and that most people, if they had to face it themselves after an innocent is killed by it, would not use it.

You've used appeal to emotion to argue the death penalty is moral. I on the other hand use it, actual numbers and examples, and economics to show that it's a loss on all three fronts. You haven't cited an example where it's saved one person. You claimed that someone could escape and kill someone but it was speculatory. You speculated they were calling outside and killing someone, but it is still speculatory. The murder ratio in prison is actually lower than some cities and we're not sure if it's repeat or new offenders - that's something that needs to be proven.


To conclude, I refuse to bicker back and forth with someone who does not analyze their own arguments for consistency or the lack thereof, and just asserts what is convenient at the direct moment while it directly contradicts what they say at a later moment. Your insistence on the usage of the fallacy of incomplete evidence and later insistence on it not having been used is staggering. And while I logically admit the flaws in the current system (which I've acknowledged is far from ideal), you still sit here arguing as if instituting your policy would magically come with none of its failings or moral dilemmas and refuse to acknowledge any of such.


You're still failing to cite any evidence of your claims I see, using the fallacy fallacy, and in general do not have an idea of how the fallacy you're claiming actually works.

I provided the exact percentage listed in the source. The fallacy of incomplete evidence requires this to be missing. Your link had nothing regarding exception v. the rule, and only dictated that if evidence like the seven percent was hidden that it would then fall within incomplete evidence. We know it's an exception, but I argued it's still a large issue by my standards. That is not a fallacy no matter how much you wish.


Anyways, my argument from the get go has been extraordinarily consistent as far as I have been shown and can tell


Consistency means nothing without hard evidence. The question ultimately is whether the system is a greater threat to the innocent that will get hit by it, or if the threat has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt greater. Until you can show empirically that the system has killed less innocent than the alternative you haven't provided sufficient evidence.


and in most if not all cases it preserves innocent life, and that the points to evidence that are prison killings, witness killings, brutal killings, and a cornucopia of other manners I listed above in which a killer would be too much of a threat to others to be kept alive, and should instead be put down.


Which, and I say again, you've provided no evidence of.


did at least somewhat myself and think my argument is at least a bit stronger than it was before.


I certainly don't think so.


Well I'm out, if you want to the last word is yours, if not that's cool too. So you know and so that I'm being upfront, that's my way of saying don't try to lure me or bait me into anything else. In the interest of fairness I do not expect you to not have any say against what I present but I will not stand for anything intending to make me look bad for leaving, or to attempt to snag me into staying. I've had too many people take pot shots at my back when I leave to not have learned that lesson, although I'm obviously not accusing you of having any intention of doing it yourself. I'd just rather make my intentions as clear as possible, and make sure that on the off-chance that it would happen unintentionally that you'd notice and reconsider.


I really don't care how you interpret my posts, it's your choice alone to stay or leave.
10 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Irvine Blvd Tusti...
Offline
Posted 9/7/17 , edited 9/7/17
I support it fully. Unless we have higly deterrent laws, we should not expect the crime rate to go down. Our prisons are full of criminals who deserve death penalty but instead they get life sentence and become a burden on tax payers. https://www.wklaw.com/california-court-of-appeal-puts-death-penalty-on-hold/
112 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Cookie Land
Offline
Posted 9/7/17
In my country the death penalty was abolished after we adopted our current constitution. Our constitution guarantees everybody the right to life.

I could not imagine living in a country with the death penalty. The thought scares me. Because at the end of the day, you could be innocent and find yourself on death row. Imagine that!
22985 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 9/7/17 , edited 9/7/17

HarperChristy wrote:

I support it fully. Unless we have higly deterrent laws, we should not expect the crime rate to go down. Our prisons are full of criminals who deserve death penalty but instead they get life sentence and become a burden on tax payers. https://www.wklaw.com/california-court-of-appeal-puts-death-penalty-on-hold/


You can't bump threads where the OP nuked I am afraid. Since they lack the ability to be held accountable or request their own thread closure, this will likely be locked as one of the moderators gets on.

I think you can make a new thread though.
6678 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / Pacific North West
Online
Posted 9/7/17
Im willing to make conscessions to keep the death penalty. For instance it can only be used in cases where its an undeniable fact the accused did the crime. For instance Aurora theater shooting, Virgina Tech shooting... in both instances there was clear video footage and dozens to hundreds of witnesses. In such a case I believe death penalty should be used, with no chance for appeals. Add to that firing squad should be a cheaper alternative. Not sure how someone who is willing to kill 10-100+ victims somehow gets to say their execution is cruel... If you take such a direction then youd be hard pressed to say anyone innocent will ever be killed. The highest cost of death penalty is the legal fees incurred by appeals. No appeals when the mountain of evidence makes it an open and shut case, means cost would be infinately cheaper then life in prison.

Someone mentioned nobody has ever escaped a super max prison... well #1 thats because there is ONLY 1 federal in the US and #2 I would argue super max prisons are far more cruel and unusual then the death penalty. If I was falsely accused of a crime I would much rather die firing squad then live even 1yr in a super max prison. In a super max prison all inmates are isolated for 23hours a day. THey are not allowed to talk to other inmates, prison staff or family unless they are told they may do so. Super max prison guards are not subject to an approval process for any means of use of force and are not subject to inquiries regarding excessive force or wrongful death. Super max prisons are the closest thing a human can call hell. Oh and by the way the assumption that nobody has ever escaped a super max is based SOLELY on the ADX federal facility. Alcatraz was state run super max prison as I recall 3 or 4 gentlemen escaped.... so the statement was either misleading or incorrect.

Dragon
65093 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/7/17
Closed since OP nuked
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.