do you guys know anything about this???

for those that don't long story short, these bastards bombed a popular night club that was popular with the tourists (especially the aussies) killed a ton of people etc, the issue is the bombers were given the death penalty but have yet to be executed, they were given 72 hrs last friday but it was put off a week sofar so they could have their pray day (today)

i want to know what you guys think

I think the death penalty is pretty stupid. Makes no sense to me at all.

i have struggled for many years on wether or not i agree with it, but as far as these people know the laws and know they will get killed for shit like this and less severe things and they yet they still do it

so far their prayers worked, huh?
ark is an idiot

state your case please, czar.

I'm assuming you just issued a blanket statement that all death penalties are stupid, in which destroying a human being who destroys other human beings can never be justified.

is this true?

do you guys know anything about this???

for those that don't long story short, these bastards bombed a popular night club that was popular with the tourists (especially the aussies) killed a ton of people etc, the issue is the bombers were given the death penalty but have yet to be executed, they were given 72 hrs last friday but it was put off a week sofar so they could have their pray day (today)

i want to know what you guys think

I think they should put them in a building together, and tell them that the death penalty has been turned over, and that they will have life in prison instead.

Then, wait half an hour.

Then, blow up the building. Surprise!!! The victims had no warning, these assholes shouldn't, either. Kill 'em.

can i quote that and post that on my other board??? i think thats how it should be done

I'm assuming you just issued a blanket statement that all death penalties are stupid, in which destroying a human being who destroys other human beings can never be justified.

is this true?

Yupp. That is exactly what I am saying. The death penalty is about revenge, not justice.

I disagree, it's still justice, but without the burden on the taxpayers for the rest of their lives.

Well, in reality, the true justice wont occur till after they're dead anyway.

except that these bastards can't wait to go to the promise land because of the 70 virgins or whatever

Sure, let them, they're in for a surprise.

Yupp. That is exactly what I am saying. The death penalty is about revenge, not justice.

Justice is both remedy and punishment. not revenge. a victim's death brought upon by a criminal is incurable so therefore remedy of said action will be dealt with death, thus said criminal can not again administer death.

can i quote that and post that on my other board??? i think thats how it should be done

Sure, go ahead. Let me know how it goes over.

This seems like a fucking topic I would have had for a paper in one of my undergrad classes.

Vigilantism. I'm fucking for it. Let the families of those who died deal with them. That's fucking justice. A life filled with torture is a far greater punishment than death.

Dear Ark,
This is revenge.

This seems like a fucking topic I would have had for a paper in one of my undergrad classes.

Vigilantism. I'm fucking for it. Let the families of those who died deal with them. That's fucking justice. A life filled with torture is a far greater punishment than death.

Thirsty Thursday?

I remember seeing a show about that bombing, truly tragic. It was a horrific event. Wrap them in cobras and lower them into a pit of badgers.

Dear Ark,
This is revenge
I remember seeing a show about that bombing, truly tragic. It was a horrific event. Wrap them in cobras and lower them into a pit of badgers.

Or you can pull the old Col. William Tavington trick and lock them in a building... then light it on fire!

Dear Ark,
This is in fact justice. I think you can learn a thing or two from William c tavington, yo.
Or you can pull the old Col. William Tavington trick and lock them in a building... then light it on fire!

I think the death penalty is pretty stupid. Makes no sense to me at all.

Why? Does it make more sense to house a criminal who clearly cannot abide by the rules of society and likely never will? Pay for them to live 50 years with tax dollars? Why not just get rid of them, save some money, and know that one more useless individual is no longer here to infect the planet?

They were executed by firing squad last night

thank fuck thats over

Why? Does it make more sense to house a criminal who clearly cannot abide by the rules of society and likely never will? Pay for them to live 50 years with tax dollars? Why not just get rid of them, save some money, and know that one more useless individual is no longer here to infect the planet?

Yes, it does make more sense.

Why is it that, despite all of the useless shit that everyone wastes their money on, the second it comes to the death penalty, people want to suddenly practice frugality? We'll ignore the fact that it costs more money to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life (at least in the US it does) but why would you let someone else effect you like that? Every time someone gets executed, you see a bunch of retards clamoring outside the prison, chanting things like "FRY HIM" or "SEND HIM TO HELL". People are actually taking pleasure in this sort of thing, they fucking enjoy it. And then, when you call them on it, they turn around and say some bullshit like you've just tried to pass off.

Why would you ever let someone like this affect you to the point where you would actually derive enjoyment out of their death? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that people dying isn't your sort of thing, so why give someone else the power to change that?

I enjoy people getting executed if they earned it. You should get a bandaid for your bleeding heart.

Yes, it does make more sense.

Why is it that, despite all of the useless shit that everyone wastes their money on, the second it comes to the death penalty, people want to suddenly practice frugality? We'll ignore the fact that it costs more money to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life (at least in the US it does) but why would you let someone else effect you like that? Every time someone gets executed, you see a bunch of retards clamoring outside the prison, chanting things like "FRY HIM" or "SEND HIM TO HELL". People are actually taking pleasure in this sort of thing, they fucking enjoy it. And then, when you call them on it, they turn around and say some bullshit like you've just tried to pass off.

Why would you ever let someone like this affect you to the point where you would actually derive enjoyment out of their death? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that people dying isn't your sort of thing, so why give someone else the power to change that?

There are obviously a lot of things that taxpayer dollars are wasted on, and I'm all for fixing that as well. I get no enjoyment out of watching someone die at all, but I think it is a more effective way to deal with the problem. For example, someone that rapes and murders a 5 year old girl clearly has no hope of being rehabilitated and becoming a productive member of society. That person is fucked, has no hope of becoming normal, and thus society has no use for them. What is the point of keeping them alive and burdening the public with the cost of their survival?

Yes, it does make more sense.

Why is it that, despite all of the useless shit that everyone wastes their money on, the second it comes to the death penalty, people want to suddenly practice frugality? We'll ignore the fact that it costs more money to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life (at least in the US it does) but why would you let someone else effect you like that? Every time someone gets executed, you see a bunch of retards clamoring outside the prison, chanting things like "FRY HIM" or "SEND HIM TO HELL". People are actually taking pleasure in this sort of thing, they fucking enjoy it. And then, when you call them on it, they turn around and say some bullshit like you've just tried to pass off.

Why would you ever let someone like this affect you to the point where you would actually derive enjoyment out of their death? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that people dying isn't your sort of thing, so why give someone else the power to change that?


Also, imagine for a second that someone comes in your home and brutally murders one of your family members with a hammer for no apparent reason. Would you not want to see that person dead? I don't think there is any morbidity in that at all, if it is family members rallying the death of the person that caused them pain and took the life of their loved one.

They were executed by firing squad last night

thank fuck thats over

The report I read said they were hung, then their bodies were returned to their mothers houses in their home villages.

I was going to mention it when I got home from work, but I kinda forgot... Drinking a bottle of wine didn't help. Ah-well...


Done is done either way. Fucking crazy bastards. If it was a firing squad (they requested to be beheaded, figured it was more "humane") than I hope they soaked the bullets in pigs blood first..

well if they are anything like china their families will get the bill for the bullets

In Wisconsin, certain baddies get put in gen pop. Let the prisoners deal with them.

I enjoy people getting executed if they earned it. You should get a bandaid for your bleeding heart.

And you should get a helmet... fucking retard. Never said that I gave a shit about these criminals, just said I didn't want to give them control over how I derive enjoyment.

There are obviously a lot of things that taxpayer dollars are wasted on, and I'm all for fixing that as well. I get no enjoyment out of watching someone die at all, but I think it is a more effective way to deal with the problem. For example, someone that rapes and murders a 5 year old girl clearly has no hope of being rehabilitated and becoming a productive member of society. That person is fucked, has no hope of becoming normal, and thus society has no use for them. What is the point of keeping them alive and burdening the public with the cost of their survival?

I'm not really sure what your point is considering that it costs more money to put someone to death than it does to keep them alive in prison for the rest of their lives. Simply because you are not going to put someone to death does not mean that you are trying to rehabilitate them. Let them rot in jail for the rest of their lives and be done with it. The only downside to this is that a bunch of hilly-billy yokels get deprived of a good 'ol lynchin'.

ark, you were doing good not returning to this thread. now you are losing even more ground. stop before someone does place that helmet on you.

Ark and I have had this discussion before. He made some very solid points betwixt his assholery.....

yes, ark is stubborn on this issue. but letting murderers rot in jail, he unknowingly accuses himself for using revengeful tactics. Put the sick man to death, ark.

Ark and I have had this discussion before. He made some very solid points betwixt his assholery.....

lol

This is true. I was quite the prick then, sorry for that.

And czar, give it a rest. You seldom make any sense and this is no exception.

lol

This is true. I was quite the prick then, sorry for that.

And czar, give it a rest. You seldom make any sense and this is no exception.

What didn't make sense? you never asked and my bet is on you avoiding looking like a little newb again.

Okay czar, you want to continue this then fine.

Capital punishment is not justice. Justice is the act of keeping things in proper accordance of order. If someone breaks the law, you can rehabilitate them so that they no longer break the law and hence comply with order. If such a person is deemed incapable of being rehabilitated, you remove them from society, elminating their ability to disturb order. Now, there are many ways that one could remove one from society, however, justice would fall in line with the method that is most removed from one's emotional response. Wishing that such a person dies is, undoubtedly the subject of an emotional response as there are more humane and economically feasible options available to achieve this balance of order. Seeking the death penalty merely exposes your own personal vendetta while glossing over your desire for order.

I'm not really sure what your point is considering that it costs more money to put someone to death than it does to keep them alive in prison for the rest of their lives. Simply because you are not going to put someone to death does not mean that you are trying to rehabilitate them. Let them rot in jail for the rest of their lives and be done with it. The only downside to this is that a bunch of hilly-billy yokels get deprived of a good 'ol lynchin'.

It costs more to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life? How is that exactly?

Okay czar, you want to continue this then fine.

Capital punishment is not justice. Justice is the act of keeping things in proper accordance of order. If someone breaks the law, you can rehabilitate them so that they no longer break the law and hence comply with order. If such a person is deemed incapable of being rehabilitated, you remove them from society, elminating their ability to disturb order. Now, there are many ways that one could remove one from society, however, justice would fall in line with the method that is most removed from one's emotional response. Wishing that such a person dies is, undoubtedly the subject of an emotional response as there are more humane and economically feasible options available to achieve this balance of order. Seeking the death penalty merely exposes your own personal vendetta while glossing over your desire for order.

Capital punishment is not justice? Really? So if your mother gets raped and murdered what would you want of the person who did it?

Rehabilitation rarely works. Are you familiar with the high recidivism rates of criminals? Apparently not.

You remove them from society at the cost of 30k a year at the tax payer expense? Only a liberal Canadian would say such a thing. Also, nobody ever escapes from prison...ever.

And again with the emotional response, I revert back to my question about your mother.

I'll give you further examples and statistics all night if you want. You picked a topic that I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable on. I recently wrote an article on capital punishment actually (published in the 08/08 Phi Alpha Delta newsletter). I'll post it up if you want. It's long though. :)

It costs more to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life? How is that exactly?

shhhhhhhh lemme get this one. please.

The trials that seek the death penalty cost significantly more than those that do not. When you factor in those costs, along with the costs associated with the numerous appeals, it costs quite a bit more to put someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life. Some of you will say "just shoot them in the head and be done with it" but that is not how the system works. This topic has been beaten pretty good here if you are interested:

http://www.theforumlounge.com/sad-video-t9781.html?highlight=conjugal

Capital punishment is not justice? Really? So if your mother gets raped and murdered what would you want of the person who did it?

I would want to kill this person, but this would be my emotional response and would not be a reflection of justice.

Rehabilitation rarely works. Are you familiar with the high recidivism rates of criminals? Apparently not.

Although I brought up rehabilitation I am not arguing in favour or against it. I did it merely because it would not be a logical progression to say that if someone breaks the law, you always remove them from society forever.

You remove them from society at the cost of 30k a year at the tax payer expense? Only a liberal Canadian would say such a thing. Also, nobody ever escapes from prison...ever.P

Yet you would pay significantly more simply for the chance that they would die? That makes no sense. Stop glossing over the aspects of this that you don't like.

And again with the emotional response, I revert back to my question about your mother.

Already addressed. I'm not arguing that such emotional responses aren't understandable, nor am I saying that I couldn't sympathize with them. I am simply saying that the law should not be based upon them.

I'll give you further examples and statistics all night if you want. You picked a topic that I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable on. I recently wrote an article on capital punishment actually (published in the 08/08 Phi Alpha Delta newsletter). I'll post it up if you want. It's long though. :)

Look Vert, I realize that you are probably pretty giddy right now over the chance for you to play pretend lawyer, but if this is your opening argument, then you have failed pretty miserably. Not saying that you can't win this, but I'd suggest dropping the highbrow bullshit.

you are lacking research. You obviously need to separate justice from tools/method. for example...capital punishment is not justice. capital punishment is a tool justice will use to perform a certain remedy/punishment.

but I'm here to help. so what are the function of justice? I could use Vert's help in this but justice looks at both the victim and the community. Justice recognize that there is no cure for greater crimes...such as murders. thus all punishment is lessor than the greater crime. with that, rehab or destroying the criminal will never equal the crime. and the price that the victim paid will only be equal to the criminal taking his own life. therefore, capital punishment is the closest and protects the community from further aggression of, lets say, a serial killer.

Oh yeah, I forgot to ask, who was the last person who escaped from maxium security prison that posed a violent risk to society? Not saying that there aren't any, but doubt any of real significance.

you are lacking research. You obviously need to separate justice from tools/method. for example...capital punishment is not justice. capital punishment is a tool justice will use to perform a certain remedy/punishment.

but I'm here to help. so what are the function of justice? I could use Vert's help in this but justice looks at both the victim and the community. Justice recognize that there is no cure for greater crimes...such as murders. thus all punishment is lessor than the greater crime. with that, rehab or destroying the criminal will never equal the crime. and the price that the victim paid will only be equal to the criminal taking his own life. therefore, capital punishment is the closest and protects the community from further aggression of, lets say, a serial killer.

Who says that justice has to be eye for an eye? Czar fails.

hey, these one liners are pretty easy, maybe I'll just use them on you from now on?

you steal, justice punish. justice doesn't come to your home and steal. so your insertion that justice is eye for an eye is based upon weak sauce. therefore stealing can be remedy easily than murdering.

you don't rehab an attack dog. it tastes the blood and likes it. you put it down. humans are the same.

bring it

I'm sorry but maybe you should go back and re-read that train wreck of a post of yours that I responded to. You said that we should go with the death penalty because it is as close to equaling the crime of the offender that we can get to. You are arguing in favour of "eye for an eye". What part of this aren't you getting here?

its also about the community. you can forego capital punishment if you killed a human for self defense. especially man slaughter. but any risk of the community, that man is a dead sucka.

try not to approach my posts as train wreak and actually read them. you are looking newblet.

its also about the community.

What is, the death penalty? Are you saying that the community benefits more from capital punishment than it does from life in prison?

you can forego capital punishment if you killed a human for self defense. especially man slaughter. but any risk of the community, that man is a dead sucka.

Self defense does not apply after the crime has been committed, which is the issue here. For example, if I break into your home, killing me would be self defence. If you wait until a week after I break into your home and kill me while I'm having a cup of coffee at Denny's, then that isn't self defense.

try not to approach my posts as train wreak and actually read them. you are looking newblet.

Czar, I do read your posts, and I try to respond to them as thoughtfully as possible, but the truth is, they just aren't very good.

Let me tell you a story. Go ahead and get a snack if you like, I'll wait.

Alright, when I was in high school I took gym every year. One year, we had this mentally handicapped kid in our class, named Brandon. The school tried it's best to intergrate Brandon into the curiculum as much as possible so he would always participate in any of the sports that we played. Now, aside from Brandon's obvious mental limitations, he was also not very physically gifted, however, everytime he would get the ball, we would all have to pretend that he was unstoppable. It didn't matter that he didn't understand how to play the game, or that he would pick up the soccer ball and throw it into the net when he scored. Brandon played by his own rules and I guess out of some weird social conditioning, we all went along with it. Now, here's where you come in. I need your help. I'm trying to do for you what I did for Brandon but you're making this really difficult. I mean, help me out for god sakes. At least Brandon stayed on the court.

lol

that is why i love you ark. always give us retards all the help we need

the community benefits from the protection from killers.

Self defense does not apply after the crime has been committed, which is the issue here. For example, if I break into your home, killing me would be self defence. If you wait until a week after I break into your home and kill me while I'm having a cup of coffee at Denny's, then that isn't self defense.

correct. is there a point to that? you basically wrote something that skirted outside of our topic.
but for czar to understand your point, i will add that misfortunes are formed from the unexpected and are not crimes. the victim to kill a burglar a week later isn't misfortune but from wickedness and said victim has to meet justice.

ever thought maybe you're retarded?

Alright Penis Glitter, Esq., let's discuss a few things here.

I would want to kill this person, but this would be my emotional response and would not be a reflection of justice.

So say you and the liberal wing of the United States Supreme Court. However, your opinion neglects mention of the facts that the death penalty addresses three key aspects of the American system of Justice:

Morality; is it the moral responsibility of the state to punish the most severe criminals in the most severe way? Yes. The fact is it is the state's responsibility. The United States Supreme court; the finder of fact in law, has held on several occasions that the death penalty is a morally appropriate punishment for the most severe criminals. In Gregg v. Georgia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=428&invol=153), the Supreme Court decided that death penalties do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. If the highest court in the Justice Department of the United States of America determined that it does in fact reflect justice, how do you intend to argue otherwise?

Deterrence; does the death penalty deter crime? Yes. The simple fact is that it does. Murders are on the decline since the 1970s.

Fairness; is the death penalty fairly given to only those who commit the most severe of crimes? Yes. Only those who commit premeditated murder (Murder in the 1st degree) receive the death penalty.

Although I brought up rehabilitation I am not arguing in favour or against it. I did it merely because it would not be a logical progression to say that if someone breaks the law, you always remove them from society forever.

As mentioned before, you do know that capital punishment is reserved ONLY for premeditated murder right? Not rapes, not manslaughter, not something like grand larceny where I may agree with you (depending upon various other aspects) that they can be rehabilitated. These murderers should not be removed from society forever now? Interesting...

Yet you would pay significantly more simply for the chance that they would die? That makes no sense. Stop glossing over the aspects of this that you don't like.

You do realize that the 30 year cost of constructing, and incarcerating people at a New 500 Cell Prison (Yes, only 500 cells) is in excess of 350 MILLION dollars now right? Versus "Cost per execution for drugs used : $86.08" plus about 300k for the average 10 years they spend in prison awaiting death (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm). Also, you realize how few total crimes murder compromises? Sure it gets played up by our buddies at the media, but it does not happen as much as the public is lead to believe. So again, how is it more expensive to put someone to death than it is to incarcerate them? 2ndGen and I would like to know where you get your facts from. I posted mine. Also, read this to gain a sense of the costs of incarceration. http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=200410874&var_Year=2004&var_Month=10&var_Day=27

Already addressed. I'm not arguing that such emotional responses aren't understandable, nor am I saying that I couldn't sympathize with them. I am simply saying that the law should not be based upon them.

Well I see your point here in understanding the mob mentality of people, I can't say I agree with your standpoint. If you could really live knowing that the man who raped and murdered your mother lives every one of his days getting 3 hots and a cot, all the cigarettes he can smoke, and probably illegal contraband at his leisure, then power to you. I strongly hold true to my opinion that everyday he lives and everyday that passes without your mother and knowing what happened to her would get the best of you ultimately. Is that emotional response as per your mentioning? Sure. Are emotional response and justice intertwined? Certainly. Let the time fit the crime.

Look Vert, I realize that you are probably pretty giddy right now over the chance for you to play pretend lawyer, but if this is your opening argument, then you have failed pretty miserably. Not saying that you can't win this, but I'd suggest dropping the highbrow bullshit.

Well I guess that's why attorney's don't rely on the opinion of their legal adversary to decide cases huh? You have good arguments, but they are just that. Nothing backed up with any facts. You mention rehabilitation but neglect recidivism. You mention the cost of executing someone but are unaware of the costs. The appeals process is the most costly aspect of it. The Earl Warren Supreme Court of the 50s and 60s (liberal such as yourself) can be a large part to blame for mandatory appeals, which I do not agree with.

At some point you have to ask yourself, why should someone such as Timothy McVeigh get to enjoy life in prison with warm meals, television, and the like when he murdered hundreds in cold blood.

If you want to set out and do a Voir Dire on TFL, I'm down. I'm pretty confident I could beat you in a legal argument piss drunk and while one handed boxing. :bigthumb:

Oh yeah, I forgot to ask, who was the last person who escaped from maxium security prison that posed a violent risk to society? Not saying that there aren't any, but doubt any of real significance.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259061

Hurts when it happened so recently in your own country huh? :owned:

vert obviously isn't retarded and is champ of explaining justice. how'd i do, vert?

Not too bad. A little lacking on explanation, but better than I would expect from you.

lol thx :hippie:

no prob.

Ark clearly owned by Vert and his sidekick retard, czar. that is sad. a retard pwning ark.
/shrug.

dont go away mad, ark. just go away.

Alright Penis Glitter, Esq., let's discuss a few things here.

Penis glitter? I believe that that is your thing. Just see your future sig.

So say you and the liberal wing of the United States Supreme Court. However, your opinion neglects mention of the facts that the death penalty addresses three key aspects of the American system of Justice:

Yeah, until they get more liberals in the Supreme Court, then what? People in power getting to exercise their opinions. Nothing more than that.

Morality; is it the moral responsibility of the state to punish the most severe criminals in the most severe way? Yes. The fact is it is the state's responsibility.

The most severe way, huh? Tell me then, why did they do away with the gas chamber? Why did they do away with the electric chair? Aren't those methods of execution more severe than lethal injection? Fuck, I could think of more severe ways to punish someone, why doesn't the state boil people alive then? Call me crazy now, but isn’t that because the state views those methods as too severe, regardless of the crime?

The United States Supreme court; the finder of fact in law, has held on several occasions that the death penalty is a morally appropriate punishment for the most severe criminals. In Gregg v. Georgia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=428&invol=153), the Supreme Court decided that death penalties do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. If the highest court in the Justice Department of the United States of America determined that it does in fact reflect justice, how do you intend to argue otherwise?

Verses say the highest court of another country that finds otherwise? What's the difference? In a debate of ethics, you don't simply rely on precedent. You want to bring some discussion into this or not?

Deterrence; does the death penalty deter crime? Yes. The simple fact is that it does. Murders are on the decline since the 1970s.

I could be off on this so please show me if I am (honestly) but is there a clear and indisputable correlation between the institution of the death penalty and a decrease in violent crime? I was under the impression that there was not.

Fairness; is the death penalty fairly given to only those who commit the most severe of crimes? Yes. Only those who commit premeditated murder (Murder in the 1st degree) receive the death penalty.

Never suggested otherwise.

As mentioned before, you do know that capital punishment is reserved ONLY for premeditated murder right? Not rapes, not manslaughter, not something like grand larceny where I may agree with you (depending upon various other aspects) that they can be rehabilitated. These murderers should not be removed from society forever now? Interesting...

When did I ever say that? You might want to read what I actually said there champ. I said that when someone breaks the law (or in otherwords, disrupts order) you attempt to rehabilitate them UNLESS it is deemed that they cannot be rehabilitated. Seriously, how the fuck do you conclude that I don't think that people who cannot be rehabilitated should not be removed from society forever?

This is what I said:

If someone breaks the law, you can rehabilitate them so that they no longer break the law and hence comply with order. If such a person is deemed incapable of being rehabilitated, you remove them from society, eliminating their ability to disturb order.

Where you get the above conclusion from is beyond me. Although it is interesting...

You do realize that the 30 year cost of constructing, and incarcerating people at a New 500 Cell Prison (Yes, only 500 cells) is in excess of 350 MILLION dollars now right? Versus "Cost per execution for drugs used : $86.08" plus about 300k for the average 10 years they spend in prison awaiting death (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm). Also, you realize how few total crimes murder compromises? Sure it gets played up by our buddies at the media, but it does not happen as much as the public is lead to believe. So again, how is it more expensive to put someone to death than it is to incarcerate them? 2ndGen and I would like to know where you get your facts from. I posted mine. Also, read this to gain a sense of the costs of incarceration. http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=200410874&var_Year=2004&var_Month=10&var_Day=27

Yet here you are ignoring the cost of trial and the almost endless loop of appeals that the system affords those on death row to exercise.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty


Well I see your point here in understanding the mob mentality of people, I can't say I agree with your standpoint. If you could really live knowing that the man who raped and murdered your mother lives every one of his days getting 3 hots and a cot, all the cigarettes he can smoke, and probably illegal contraband at his leisure, then power to you. I strongly hold true to my opinion that everyday he lives and everyday that passes without your mother and knowing what happened to her would get the best of you ultimately. Is that emotional response as per your mentioning? Sure. Are emotional response and justice intertwined? Certainly. Let the time fit the crime.

Well I guess that's why attorney's don't rely on the opinion of their legal adversary to decide cases huh? You have good arguments, but they are just that. Nothing backed up with any facts. You mention rehabilitation but neglect recidivism. You mention the cost of executing someone but are unaware of the costs. The appeals process is the most costly aspect of it. The Earl Warren Supreme Court of the 50s and 60s (liberal such as yourself) can be a large part to blame for mandatory appeals, which I do not agree with.

Sigh... when did I say that it wouldn't get to me? When did I say that it wouldn't piss me off? Unlike you however, I choose not to blur the lines between justice and vendetta. Here's the problem that I see with this debate: you are used to arguing with a liberal who is against the death penalty but in favour of rehabilitation. Several times now you've called me a lefty and tried to push this ridiculous idea that I'm backing rehabilitation. That isn't the case here. You say that I mention rehabilitation but neglect recidivism? Hmmm, that's pretty interesting seeing as how my position is (and always has been) that those who are deemed incapable of rehabilitation (here's a hint, I'm talking about those who would otherwise be getting the death penalty) should be removed from society for the rest of their lives. I've stated this at least half a dozen times in this thread alone. So, how exactly is recidivism an issue at all when I'm saying that said offender should never be let out of prison? Please enlighten me on this Mr. not really a law student.

Second, you say that I am unaware of the costs of execution, then proceed to tell me that the majority of the costs come from appeals. Wow, that's very interesting because I seem to recall saying the exact same thing earlier in this thread here:

The trials that seek the death penalty cost significantly more than those that do not. When you factor in those costs, along with the costs associated with the numerous appeals, it costs quite a bit more to put someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life. Some of you will say "just shoot them in the head and be done with it" but that is not how the system works.

That aside, I do find it interesting that you disagree with the mandatory appeals that are in place seeing as how they were instituted by the Supreme Court. Didn't you just argue against my ability to find moral fault with the highest court in the US? Aren't you doing the exact same thing here? Hmmm...


At some point you have to ask yourself, why should someone such as Timothy McVeigh get to enjoy life in prison with warm meals, television, and the like when he murdered hundreds in cold blood.

Right, I get that. You are upset and you want him to pay. That's all this is Vert. You can whine and moan and try to act like you're the expert on this topic but not once have you been able to extend your position past this point. THIS is all that you've got. People commit disgusting crimes and you want them to suffer for it. Not saying that you are in the wrong for feeling this way, but that isn't justice.

If you want to set out and do a Voir Dire on TFL, I'm down. I'm pretty confident I could beat you in a legal argument piss drunk and while one handed boxing. :bigthumb:

Hey, you know more about the American legal system than I do, I don't dispute that. What little I had read I've mostly forgotten but you're batting 0-2 right now and it isn't looking that good. I have no doubt that you could continue to misquote and pretend that I am arguing things that I am not all night, but frankly, that's not really what I am after here.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259061

Hurts when it happened so recently in your own country huh? :owned:

Maybe I miss-read that, but doesn't it say that they are charged, as in, not yet convicted? So even if there was a death penalty, it would not make a difference if they escape before they are convicted, no?

Remember Ted Bundy? He was facing the death penalty yet he escaped (twice) while he was on trial (raped and killed a 10 year old girl the second time he escaped). How does the death penalty (or not having the death penalty) make any difference in this matter?

Now, let's completely forget what I said above. I would also argue that the very few violent offenders that have (and will) escape from prison would be offset by those who would be wrongly given the death penalty.

dont go away mad, ark. just go away.

Hey, there's still time to switch sides.

There are so many errors and a general lack of knowledge in your reply, that I'm not even going to bother. I will say that "most severe punishment" means the most severe punishment allowed by the constitution of the United States; not something cruel and unusual like being bedazzled with penis glitter.

Also how did the Supreme Court mandate mandatory appeals? That would be the legislative branch champ. They create new laws. I though you knew how a bill became a law? :bigthumb:

Failure...

That's all you got? "There are so many failures that I'm not going to respond"? I took the time to respond to all of your "failures". How you gonna be a lawyer if you can't even hack it against someone who doesn't know anything about law?

Because fighting against someone who doesn't know anything about the law is like beating up on a retarded kid at the Special Olympics. Juries look down on lawyer bullying.

You can say that all you like but it doesn't change the fact that you've yet to make a point that actually stands up against what I'm saying. You mentioned that you wrote a paper on capital punishment, mind posting it up? I could use a good laugh.

Juries look down on lawyer bullying.

Does that apply to people who imagine that they are lawyers, too?

You can say that all you like but it doesn't change the fact that you've yet to make a point that actually stands up against what I'm saying. You mentioned that you wrote a paper on capital punishment, mind posting it up? I could use a good laugh.

An article in a newsletter. I'll try and find it.

Does that apply to people who imagine that they are lawyers, too?

You asked how I am going to be a lawyer and I give you an answer and you respond with that? Nice. Typical liberal bullshit. Never answer a question or respond to something addressed and instead always steer away from it.

But let me guess, The Supreme Court enacted a law (because they do that according to you) that mandates not answering the question or responding to an answer given in a proper manner? Are you familiar with the wedding cake model, Ark? The Due Process Model versus the Crime Control Model? I think you're quite a bit out of your realm and insult tactics are all you got. Call my bluff and prove me wrong with facts rather than "Oh they don't deserve to die" opinionated crap.

But let me guess, The Supreme Court enacted a law (because they do that according to you) that mandates not answering the question or responding to an answer given in a proper manner? Are you familiar with the wedding cake model, Ark? The Due Process Model versus the Crime Control Model? I think you're quite a bit out of your realm and insult tactics are all you got. Call my bluff and prove me wrong with facts rather than "Oh they don't deserve to die" opinionated crap.

Vert, we're passed this whole "I'm outta your league, kid" bullshit. It didn't work for you yesterday and it isn't working now. Even your little cheerleader isn't jumping on board. The Supreme Court bit was my error. I concede that. To be truthful, I don't really remember much about the Supreme court but that was really just sidebar to the issue at hand. You want to throw legal terms that have nothing to do with this? Be my guest, but I doubt your knowledge extends much further than a couple of university electives. Want me to throw out a bunch accounting nonsense? Probably not, so get off it.

You asked how I am going to be a lawyer and I give you an answer and you respond with that? Nice. Typical liberal bullshit. Never answer a question or respond to something addressed and instead always steer away from it.

I ask you how you are going to be a lawyer if you can't hack it against someone like me and you respond by saying that juries look down on lawyer bullying. Ummm... that isn't answering my question at all. You're response is typical liberal bullshit my friend. You didn't answer my question nor did you respond what was addressed to you. Instead, you just steered away from it.

"how are you going to make it as a lawyer if you can't win this debate?"

"you're a retard"

Vert = :owned:

I'm still waiting for facts. Insult all you want but you fail without facts. Also, you don't need to tell me that you don't remember much about the Supreme Court; it's quite apparent. Sidebar? Holy shit! Someone's been watching some Law & Order! Define a remittur. Explain what plea bargaining is and the two forms that it is utilized in.

Here is a few "Justice for retards" questions: How many justices are on the Supreme Court and what is the minimum majority? Explain the purpose of a magistrate judge at the federal district court level. Explain what the Dual Court system is in this country.

I can get more retarded with the questions: What is a disposition? What is the difference in burdens of proof in a civil case and a criminal case. Here dude answer me this without the help of google....

What is the difference between a criminal case and a civil case and which does the area of family law fall under?

This is why there is no point in arguing with someone about justice when they don't understand any of it's core.

Answer me any of those questions plz.

I know justice. Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa320/brianred/crank_yankers_yay.jpg

:bigthumb:

Let's pool a TFL jury for this.

If you want a job as a janitor in my firm, lemme know man. I'll hook a fellow TFL member up.

None of the above has anything to do with the issue. You are drowning right now and it's looking pretty sad. Stick to the issues as this distraction that you're pulling isn't working. I realize that you think of yourself as a pretty big deal and feel that you could run circles around me on this topic (remember, the topic is capital punishment and whether or not it should be administered) but you haven't done that yet. If your goal is to try and impress me (or anyone else for that matter) with your knowledge of legal terms, then you should probably give it a rest. Just revert back to that little world of yours where someday you'll be a big sucessful lawyer and you'll somehow make me pay someday.

Let's pool a TFL jury for this.

by all means, start one up. Let's agree on the question being asked first though.

If you want a job as a janitor in my firm, lemme know man. I'll hook a fellow TFL member up.

Sorry, but I hear that fictional law firms don't pay all that well. I'd be more than happy to hook you up when I make partner at a CA firm though, I need someone to shred papers and what not.

Sorry, but I hear that fictional law firms don't pay all that well. I'd be more than happy to hook you up when I make partner at a CA firm though, I need someone to shred papers and what not.

lolololol. Good luck with that. Just hope no legal accounting documents come across your desk. :bigthumb:

None of the above has anything to do with the issue. You are drowning right now and it's looking pretty sad. Stick to the issues as this distraction that you're pulling isn't working. I realize that you think of yourself as a pretty big deal and feel that you could run circles around me on this topic (remember, the topic is capital punishment and whether or not it should be administered) but you haven't done that yet. If your goal is to try and impress me (or anyone else for that matter) with your knowledge of legal terms, then you should probably give it a rest. Just revert back to that little world of yours where someday you'll be a big sucessful lawyer and you'll somehow make me pay someday.

lol. You don't know anything about law. Seriously man, can you tell me what the term pro se means? This is important.

lolololol. Good luck with that. Just hope no legal accounting documents come across your desk. :bigthumb:

If only you practiced pretend law in Canada, eh? I could ask you for advice.

lol. You don't know anything about law. Seriously man, can you tell me what the term pro se means? This is important.

lol this is getting pretty sad there bud. Please, tell me, how is this important to the death penalty?

*quick, think of more ancillary legal terms to distract from the issue!

Oh and right now my legal experience is a CLA (Certified Legal Assistant) and CP (Certified Paralegal) by the ABA (American Bar Association). I don't have a law license (yet), but I can still "practice law" (anyone can in a pro se [for self] case and I have before. Usually civil matters that have settled outside of court though).

*quick, think of more ancillary legal terms to distract from the issue!

What issue? The fact that your heart thinks that the death penalty should be abolished? The fact that you are spineless and anti-gun and anti-death penalty? Shit in one hand and form an opinion in the other...

Oh and I also did volunteer work for a couple of summers with indigent defendants in criminal cases via the public defender's office. Never had any capital cases but a couple potential life terms via the three strikes rule.

What issue? The fact that your heart thinks that the death penalty should be abolished? The fact that you are spineless and anti-gun and anti-death penalty? Shit in one hand and form an opinion in the other...

Who said that I am anti-gun? Gun control is a joke. Seriously, all shit talk aside, I don't consider myself liberal. Granted, on the odd issue you could say that I lean to the left (although I would argue this is not due to classical left ideology) but overall I would say that I am right of centre. Oh, and the isse is the death penalty. This is something that you are using your heart for, not me. Remember all that "what if your mother was raped and murdered" crap? You're gonna try and tell me that that isn't you talking with your emotions? Damn son, give it a rest. This just isn't your night.

lololol. I don't want your political story. I want facts; none of which have been presented to me.

And you propose life sentences correct? What do you propose in states with mandatory indeterminate sentences might I ask?

lololol. I don't want your political story. I want facts; none of which have been presented to me.

Facts about what? You want definitions to legal terms that have nothing to do with anything?

No. Consider that a competency check. You would agree that expert witnesses such as yourself must endeavor a competency check, right?

And you propose life sentences correct? What do you propose in states with mandatory indeterminate sentences might I ask?

humour me, what is the difference? Life in prison equals indeterminate sentences I thought.

No. Consider that a competency check. You would agree that expert witnesses such as yourself must endeavor a competency check, right?

I would not say that in a debate about ethics, one must be considered an "expert witness".

I would not say that in a debate about ethics, one must be considered an "expert witness".

It's normally a good idea to know a bit about justice when discussing how the death penalty does not deliver it, no?

It's normally a good idea to know a bit about justice when discussing how the death penalty does not deliver it, no?

Yeah, I can see how knowing a bunch of very important latin terms would be required.

humour me, what is the difference? Life in prison equals indeterminate sentences I thought.

Some states legislatures have adopted mandatory indeterminate sentences (often called indefinite sentences). What they are, are sentences with a range. Ever heard the phrase 5-10 years, 1-3 years? New York State has mandatory indeterminate sentences. Murder is 25-life (so murders have the possibility of parole). Also, New York State awards "good behavio(u just for you)r time." So in essence, that 25 minimum could become even less. How is justice served in this instance to a murderer?

That wouldn't be an option. Here we've got the same thing where a life sentence does not necessarily mean life in prison. Those who would otherwise get the death penalty should, in my opinion, get life in prison without the option of parole. That's all that I am saying.

Yeah, I can see how knowing a bunch of very important latin terms would be required.

So 'Mens Rea' isn't important in determining a sentence?

I've got to go make dinner. I'll pick this back up when I'm done.

That wouldn't be an option. Here we've got the same thing where a life sentence does not necessarily mean life in prison. Those who would otherwise get the death penalty should, in my opinion, get life in prison without the option of parole. That's all that I am saying.

So in a state such as New York a murderer should get a 'possible' life sentence that also could equal a 'possible' 18 years as opposed to guaranteed death?

I've got to go make dinner. I'll pick this back up when I'm done.

Have fun.

I'm gonna go play some Xbox. Study up on law and I'll quiz you later or tomorrow.

no shit. read aristotle, ark. dont be afraid to find you were wrong.

So in a state such as New York a murderer should get a 'possible' life sentence that also could equal a 'possible' 18 years as opposed to guaranteed death?

Think of life in prison (real life in prison) as a replacement for the death penalty. If the state determines that someone could possibly be rehabilitated after 18 years, well that is on them (although depending on the circumstances, I would be skeptical of that working).

killing them cost $1.38 on the electric chair. its cheap and the murderer simply lose. no need to waste time to rehabilitate since human are a dime a dozen.

True that. How's the family?

theyre all dead

Not before I thwopped 14 yr old daughter though.

o/~ Oh Canada o/~

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081112/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_fat

I think exexcution should be used more. Like touching little girls? Enjoy your IV. Enjoy race related crimes of hate? Enjoy your IV. Feel like killing someone in a fit of rage? Enjoy your IV.




See where Im going here? Sometimes the gene pool needs a little bleach. Clorox for the soul.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5114403.ece

Anyone want to tell me that these guys don't deserve to be smashed in the head with a hammer?

Ark will.

o/~ Oh Canada o/~

If his ass is too fat for his chair he can sit on the floor. If he's too fat for his bed, guess where he can sleep???

I'm bored so let's rip this scab open again. If an innocent person is sentenced to die via capital punishment, would you still support it?

Vert made mention of deterrence earlier. When I had asked him if there was any evidence to support that states that utilize capital punishment record lower rates of violent crime than those that do not, he chose not to respond. The reason for this is simple, there is no evidence to support that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than that of life in prison. But let's look at this a little deeper.

Violent crimes are committed for one of three reasons: Profit, Passion or Complusion (although I suppose that more than one of these motives could apply to a single violent crime).

If someone commits a violent act for profit, then this would be a calculated crime where one constructs their plan so as to avoid getting caught. Those who commit these crimes motivated by profit believe that they are smart enough to avoid getting caught, hence the irrelevance of punishment as a deterrance in these cases.

If someone commits a violent act out of passion, then this act would not be calculated nor would it be planned. The role of a deterrant would, again, be irrelevant.

If someone commits a violent act out of complusion, then you really have to ask yourself how many potential serial killers are deterred by the threat of death when the very root of their crimes is a hystemic spiral to the depths of depravity.

you are making an argument that capital punishment is an ineffective deterrent. We don't care.

I want to see more of why you feel that capital punishment must not be administered to a serial killer.

Because I don't want to allow them the ability to imprint their taste for murder unto me. I've said this several times actually.

Your ideal way of living is noted. but we need to know where our community's best interest lies.

we would live in a different world if we didn't 'dispose' of these sorts of people from our community. And we invented a justice system, that can only exist if the community believes in it. under a Democratic society, most of us had to ensure this type of process is available to responsible hands and has, in a large part, been administered properly.

Your ideal way of living is noted. but we need to know where our community's best interest lies.

we would live in a different world if we didn't 'dispose' of these sorts of people from our community. And we invented a justice system, that can only exist if the community believes in it. under a Democratic society, most of us had to ensure this type of process is available to responsible hands and has, in a large part, been administered properly.

But this doesn't explain why capital punishment has to be used, czar. Why do you support it? If it doesn't deterred crime, and it doesn't make a difference after the fact whether you kill the offender or keep their in jail for the rest of their lives, how does it benefit the community?

it surely quiets the emotions of communities, deters the opportunists, the passions crimes and the sort. Not all of them, you have proved that, but enough to control the large masses. and that is a good thing.

Can you prove that it actually does deter anything though? Is this also to say that communities where capital punishment is not an option are out of control? That emotions there are not quieted?

serial killers, baby/child killers and pedophiles can all burn although i do agree that there are inocent people and thats why 100% proof is needed

Violent crimes are committed for profit? lol. I guess a habitual assaulter makes more dough than a career burglar. Ark wins the argument due to extreme mental deficiency.

I can tell you this much, I have had homicidal thoughts before and the idea of getting the needle kept me from doing it.

Word son. But it has no deterrent fact at all.

It's OK as long as you use every part of the felon.

It's OK as long as you use every part of the felon.

QFT!

Violent crimes are committed for profit? lol. I guess a habitual assaulter makes more dough than a career burglar. Ark wins the argument due to extreme mental deficiency.

You can't imagine a scenario where it would be profitable to kill someone? Maybe for insurance purposes? Really? When you speak of mental deficiency, you are referring to yourself, right? I thought this was a topic of interest for you and that you couldn't wait to embarass me with all of your knowledge on the subject. Doesn't seem like you've got much on this one.

I can tell you this much, I have had homicidal thoughts before and the idea of getting the needle kept me from doing it.

So that's the only thing that keeps you from killing someone? In otherwords, if you went to a state where there was no death penalty, there's a very real chance that you would murder someone? Is that your position on this?

some people NEED that to have any sense of morality at all, just as some people wouldn't know where to begin without religion.. I would like to have more faith in humanity than this, but it is what it is

How long would that actually remain as a deterrent then? I mean, people like 1revnrex can say that it's the only thing keeping them from killing another person, but I'd be willing to bet that he's just saying that because he's in favour of capital punishment. For those who can honestly say that that is the only reason that they do not commit murder, how long would it be before they start thinking that they can get away with it? I don't see the threat of punishment being the only factor in keeping someone in check.

Why are we still bitching about this?


In a perfect, Utopian, world there would be no need for the death penalty. However there is no such thing as that "perfect world". There never has been, and there never will be.

It's just human nature. You would have to stamp out so many essential freedoms in order to go about having a society where *everybody* did what they were told, and harbored no violent intentions towards others (I may be wrong, but China comes to mind). I'm talking generations of conditioning and culling here.

Ark, we all know you're a dreamer, and you've got a bit of the bleeding heart syndrom, that's totally cool. But hold the bitching and stuff until you've got a bit of actual experience under your belt to back up your opinions. And... I hate to say it, but sitting in a college classroom listening to some liberal professor push their views does not count.


If you want an example of how human nature turns out when these strict rules/punishments are NOT in place and enforced than I would happily direct your attention to Somalia. Yesterday, today, right now, tomorrow. The national government has no real power. It's ability to effectively enforce peace throughout the region is minimal at best, and non-existant the majority of the time.

It is very real, and very true.

The fact that you are getting chafed about respecting/supporting a means to enforce the rules just goes to prove my point. Not all people feel the same as others, and not all people are able to effectively agree/live together in peace. The degree's of this inability vary GREATLY, and as a result so must the possible repercussions...

In an educated, civilized, world these disagreements are settled by talking it out. You cannot assume that everybody will be able to communicate on, and be satisfied with, that level.

from your perspective or my perspective, I would agree with you.. but different things drive different people. not everyone has an inherent concept of right and wrong. some people genuinely could not explain to you the basis of a particular action's being "wrong".. this doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to develop some serial killer complex. look at all the people who follow some religion's beliefs without any real concept of why. the laws function in the same sense for these people - you tell them something is "wrong" and that's enough for them - it's THESE people that the laws are meant to keep in check. but as you've said, absolutely nothing is going to deter some people. I'm not even saying I support capital punishment, just playing devil's advocate ;p

Why are we still bitching about this?


In a perfect, Utopian, world there would be no need for the death penalty. However there is no such thing as that "perfect world". There never has been, and there never will be.

It's just human nature. You would have to stamp out so many essential freedoms in order to go about having a society where *everybody* did what they were told, and harbored no violent intentions towards others (I may be wrong, but China comes to mind). I'm talking generations of conditioning and culling here.

Ark, we all know you're a dreamer, and you've got a bit of the bleeding heart syndrom, that's totally cool. But hold the bitching and stuff until you've got a bit of actual experience under your belt to back up your opinions. And... I hate to say it, but sitting in a college classroom listening to some liberal professor push their views does not count.


If you want an example of how human nature turns out when these strict rules/punishments are NOT in place and enforced than I would happily direct your attention to Somalia. Yesterday, today, right now, tomorrow. The national government has no real power. It's ability to effectively enforce peace throughout the region is minimal at best, and non-existant the majority of the time.

It is very real, and very true.

The fact that you are getting chafed about respecting/supporting a means to enforce the rules just goes to prove my point. Not all people feel the same as others, and not all people are able to effectively agree/live together in peace. The degree's of this inability vary GREATLY, and as a result so must the possible repercussions...

In an educated, civilized, world these disagreements are settled by talking it out. You cannot assume that everybody will be able to communicate on, and be satisfied with, that level.



Why do you say that I am getting "chaffed" over this? This is a point of interest for me and I am discussing it with people who also have an interest in it. Not your thing? That's fine, piss off then. As for the rest of your post, I guess you got the whole "you don't have any experience but I do" nonsense out of you system with it, but perhaps you'd like to actually address the issue. You want to talk about a place where rules/punishment are not in place? Why? This has nothing to do with whether life in prison should be used in place of capital punishment. Oh right, I remeber, because you have experience and I don't... masturbation should be done in private.

Ark refuses to listen to the evidence presented before him. Stubborn as a mule and with shitty 'evidence' to boot. Did you guys know that violent crimes are committed for financial reasons? Forget burglaries and White Collar Crime. Murders are the new get rich quick scheme IMO. First thing you learn in any basic criminal justice class...violent crime does not pay. Ark thinks he is right. I think this is why Americans fucking hate Canada and Europe so much. They pride themselves on ignorance. Just remember Ark doesn't know anything about the judiciary of this country though. He probably can't even name a Supreme Court justice without looking, but he is a self-proclaimed authority on issues in regards to capital punishment.

and this isn't meant to be taken as a personal insult or some arrogant declaration.. but yea, the threat of punishment WILL deter a child from doing something, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that a good proportion of the general population essentially has the mind of a child

and this isn't meant to be taken as a personal insult or some arrogant declaration.. but yea, the threat of punishment WILL deter a child from doing something, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that a good proportion of the general population essentially has the mind of a child

Especially the criminal mind.

from your perspective or my perspective, I would agree with you.. but different things drive different people. not everyone has an inherent concept of right and wrong. some people genuinely could not explain to you the basis of a particular action's being "wrong".. this doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to develop some serial killer complex. look at all the people who follow some religion's beliefs without any real concept of why. the laws function in the same sense for these people - you tell them something is "wrong" and that's enough for them - it's THESE people that the laws are meant to keep in check. but as you've said, absolutely nothing is going to deter some people. I'm not even saying I support capital punishment, just playing devil's advocate ;p

But saying that something is wrong does not address the issue of severity of punishment for those that do something that is wrong. I understand that for some, the law serves as their moral foundation (so to speak). In no way am I advocating lawlessness, I'm just questioning that the severity of punishment keeps people from breaking the law.

But saying that something is wrong does not address the issue of severity of punishment for those that do something that is wrong. I understand that for some, the law serves as their moral foundation (so to speak). In no way am I advocating lawlessness, I'm just questioning that the severity of punishment keeps people from breaking the law.

Very simply Ark, why are you here instead of robbing a convenience store?

Ark refuses to listen to the evidence presented before him. Stubborn as a mule and with shitty 'evidence' to boot. Did you guys know that violent crimes are committed for financial reasons? Forget burglaries and White Collar Crime. Murders are the new get rich quick scheme IMO. First thing you learn in any basic criminal justice class...violent crime does not pay. Ark thinks he is right. I think this is why Americans fucking hate Canada and Europe so much. They pride themselves on ignorance. Just remember Ark doesn't know anything about the judiciary of this country though. He probably can't even name a Supreme Court justice without looking, but he is a self-proclaimed authority on issues in regards to capital punishment.

lol what evidence have you presented son? Show me where tougher punishment deters crime and I'll admit that I'm wrong. Show me where states that do not practice capital punishment have higher violent crime rates than those that do not and I'll say that you were right about the whole deterrant issue.

You want to go back to profit and use it to make a case that I don't know what I'm talking about, that's fine. We'll forget about black widow serial killers and pretend that children who have killed their parents (because, in accordance with their confessions, did so for their inheritance) don't exist. Hey, I'm a reasonable guy, so we'll throw murder for profit out of the window and stick to passion and compulsion. Show me where the death penalty is a stronger deterrant than life in prison. Remember Vert, this should be easy because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, right?

and this isn't meant to be taken as a personal insult or some arrogant declaration.. but yea, the threat of punishment WILL deter a child from doing something, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that a good proportion of the general population essentially has the mind of a child

Right, but again, where does the severity of the punishment factor into this?

Very simply Ark, why are you here instead of robbing a convenience store?

Ethically I am opposed to it. That's the first reason. Second, I have no desire to commit such an act. Third, I doubt that I could get away with it. Notice this last point, I'm not throwing punishment as a deterrance out the window, I'm questioning the affect of increasing the severity and the likelihood that it decreases crime.

Okay lets run with that. Assume that you only have the deterrence from opposition and non-desire to commit such acts. You could most certainly get away with it, however. Why are you here instead of robbing a convenience store?

Golden Rule? I don't want someone stealing the money I've earned, so I'm not going to be a piece of shit and do it to someone else?

Okay lets run with that. Assume that you only have the deterrence from opposition and non-desire to commit such acts. You could most certainly get away with it, however. Why are you here instead of robbing a convenience store?

umm, because I have no desire to do it...

Why do you say that I am getting "chaffed" over this?

Because, for all intents and purposes, it looks like you are. *Edit: I never said "Chaffed" I said chafed*


This is a point of interest for me and I am discussing it with people who also have an interest in it. Not your thing? That's fine, piss off then.

Further proves the point that some people would rather not work out their differences through intelligent discussion.

As for the rest of your post, I guess you got the whole "you don't have any experience but I do" nonsense out of you system with it

I don't recall suggesting anything of the sort... Why so touchy?

You want to talk about a place where rules/punishment are not in place? Why?

How can you understand one side of an arguement without being aware of it's opposite?

This has nothing to do with whether life in prison should be used in place of capital punishment.

Do you think there are people in this world who would not view life in prison as an upgrade?? They have free food, a bed to sleep in, tv, heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, no real responsibility to speak of... Life could be worse, and for many people in the world life is worse.

Seen in this light, do you think "life in prison" is going to deter somebody from committing a violent crime?

Sure knowledge that you will be caught, and when you are you will be executed is a bit harder, but it's a lot more likely to get through to the people who, otherwise, just don't give a damn.

Oh right, I remeber, because you have experience and I don't... masturbation should be done in private.

Oh, don't be so fucking insecure!

If you want to throw a hissy-fit that's fine... but don't blame it on me

Okay, let us up the anti then...It's no longer a convenience store, but now a bank vault which contains 30 Million dollars in cash, bonds, and certificates. You can certainly get away with it. Why are you here instead of robbing the vault?

Golden Rule? I don't want someone stealing the money I've earned, so I'm not going to be a piece of shit and do it to someone else?

I can understand this. Would you be more inclined however if it were from someone or something (business) that didn't really earn it though? Say for instance a trust fund baby or a cut-throat corporation?

Why are you here instead of robbing the vault?

Don't worry, I got this one for ya Ark!!!


A: Because somebody on teh internet is WRONG!!!!! :blah:

Don't worry, I got this one for ya Ark!!!


A: Because somebody on teh internet is WRONG!!!!! :blah:

http://www.theforumlounge.com/image.php?u=898&dateline=1216171062

Well... at least from his point of view =P

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_S4vBC-4dYZs/SJuHfWtYYEI/AAAAAAAABCM/nigD-wwXK7g/s400/meh_cat.jpg

What about the bargaining chip that the death penalty provides, Ark?

Okay, let us up the anti then...It's no longer a convenience store, but now a bank vault which contains 30 Million dollars in cash, bonds, and certificates. You can certainly get away with it. Why are you here instead of robbing the vault?

Against my ethics, and, contrary to what you are saying, I can't get away with it.

What about the bargaining chip that the death penalty provides, Ark?

what would that bargaining chip be, Vert?

for ex. becomes immune to execution if said criminal testifies against the mob boss.

How can you understand one side of an arguement without being aware of it's opposite?



Do you think there are people in this world who would not view life in prison as an upgrade?? They have free food, a bed to sleep in, tv, heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, no real responsibility to speak of... Life could be worse, and for many people in the world life is worse.

Seen in this light, do you think "life in prison" is going to deter somebody from committing a violent crime?


I give credit where it is due and this isn't that bad of an "arguement". I still wouldn't accept it, but for different reasons. Let's assume that in a developing nation, where law is virtually non-exsistent, that capital punishment would act as more of a deterrent. Would you trust a legal system as unstable as one like this to be able to administer the death penalty without wrongful convictions and just flat-out exploiting it? It's believed that 141 people have been released from death row due to being wrongfully convicted in the US, and this is the US! Where a stream-lined vision of future is being instituted as a legal system. Think about what could happen in some African shithole.

what would that bargaining chip be, Vert?

It is a fact that 97 percent of criminal cases (3 per 100 make trial) are plea bargained down by the prosecution. Take for instance someone who commits Felony Grand Theft Auto. The prosecutor would be willing to lower the original charge to a Petty Theft, which is a misdemeanor. The accused serves 8 months in jail and 5 years on probation as opposed to the possibility of 8 years in prison they originally faced. No need for a trial and a waste of taxpayer money on the conviction from said trial. Cheap, quick and easy.

The bargaining chip I was referring to was utilizing the death penalty in the same way; as a tool for plea bargaining. If a criminal commits a penalty with the possibility of a death sentence, the prosecution can very easily inform them that they will be seeking the death penalty and the defendant will generally be more inclined to bargain down to a life imprisonment term, thus saving a trial. HOWEVER, if you completely do away with the death penalty, where does that leave the system of plea bargaining? Now, the highest penalty that a criminal faces is life imprisonment. The prosecution will have no incentive (such as sparing their life) to plea bargain down from life imprisonment for a murderer. This will result in trials; trials that will clog the court system further than they are clogged already.

Let's go the other way though. The death penalty is out the window and the maximum is still life imprisonment. Let's assume that by some stroke of luck, the prosecution actually does offer plea bargains, but now they actually bargain down from life imprisonment and murderers frequently wind up getting 25 years imprisonment.

That was the bargaining chip I was referring to, Ark. How do you resolve this dilemma? Send everyone to trial at the cost to the taxpayer? Plea every murder out to 25 years? Enlighten us with your intelligence.

Enlighten us with your intelligence.

lulz x2

Yupp, everyone would go to trial, just as they do in states that don't utilize the death penalty. Paint it as doom and gloom all you like but I don't see it as happening. Also, in the case where someone would be facing life in prison, do away with any plea bargaining.

Lol. You just raised my taxes to Canada level to pay for all these additional trials. Fail.

Now, Vert, can you prove that the death penalty acts as a stronger deterrent than life in prison in the US? Yes or no.

Lol. You just raised my taxes to Canada level to pay for all these additional trials. Fail.

New York has the death penalty now?

New York has the death penalty now?

38 States and the Federal Government do.

Edit: Including New York.

Now, Vert, can you prove that the death penalty acts as a stronger deterrent than life in prison in the US? Yes or no.

http://www.dpinfo.com/death_penalty_as_a_deterrent.htm

Got anything that shows how they came to these findings? I haven't looked through the whole link yet but so far it's just "such and such professor finds CP acts as a deterrent".

See the numbers associated with them? That links you to the reasoning and imperical evidence.

Thanks, there's a lot of stuff to go through there so it might take some time.

No problem. I actually had to submit a writing sample today for a prospective job and I sent in one of my articles on the death penalty. I was debating between that one or my biometrics article, but figured 20 pages about various CSI sciency shit would be too much for them. Hell, it's almost too much for me and I wrote it.

You submitted a paper about the death penalty for a job???? No fucking wonder you can't get a new job.......

You submitted a paper about the death penalty for a job???? No fucking wonder you can't get a new job.......

It's a writing sample that was requested for a paralegal position with the Manhattan District Attorney's office.....

It's a writing sample that was requested for a paralegal position with the Manhattan District Attorney's office.....

You really don't understand why that was a bad idea do you?

You really don't understand why that was a bad idea do you?

Not really. Explain.

When applying for a job....ANY job.....It's never a good idea to interject ANY political, moral, or personal beliefs. 1.) They don't give a rats ass about what you think, 2.) it's off putting and makes people not want to deal with you, 3.) the work place is NEVER the place for any of the three things that I mentioned. When you apply for any job you want to be as neutral as possible. If it were me and I was applying for that job, I would have wrote something about how, 1.) I am qualified for the job, 2.) why they should hire me, and 3.) why I'm interested in the job.....

Seriously, it seems to me that you treat these applications like it's going to be your buddy looking at them. Here's a hint: THEY ARE NOT YOUR BUDDY. Look up the word professionalism and try to act (and apply) accordingly and you might actually have a chance of getting a new job. I know from my own experience that when people submit applications to me like they are my buddy (or try to interject political, moral, or personal beliefs) I throw them in the fucking trash.

LOL, and its also the best way to get thrown off of a jury...
I heard of one dude that said "I'm looking forward to putting away a few more (ethnic slur)"...he was off in a heartbeat!

When applying for a job....ANY job.....It's never a good idea to interject ANY political, moral, or personal beliefs. 1.) They don't give a rats ass about what you think, 2.) it's off putting and makes people not want to deal with you, 3.) the work place is NEVER the place for any of the three things that I mentioned. When you apply for any job you want to be as neutral as possible. If it were me and I was applying for that job, I would have wrote something about how, 1.) I am qualified for the job, 2.) why they should hire me, and 3.) why I'm interested in the job.....

Seriously, it seems to me that you treat these applications like it's going to be your buddy looking at them. Here's a hint: THEY ARE NOT YOUR BUDDY. Look up the word professionalism and try to act (and apply) accordingly and you might actually have a chance of getting a new job. I know from my own experience that when people submit applications to me like they are my buddy (or try to interject political, moral, or personal beliefs) I throw them in the fucking trash.

With all due respect, when is the last time you applied for a job in the legal field? A paper on the death penalty doesn't necessarily mean that there is any political or person interjection within the paper itself. It could merely be stating facts and demonstrating my ability to research a topic. When you apply for positions in the legal field, the step prior to an interview is the recruiting manager (often an Esquire) request a writing sample; as well as a cover letter which explains the why they should hire me aspect and a resume with your credentials. I appreciate the two cents though. If this were for a position in another field A.) THEY (yes they requested) would not ask for a writing sample more than likely and B.) If they did, it would be catered to that field. :peace:

LOL, and its also the best way to get thrown off of a jury...
I heard of one dude that said "I'm looking forward to putting away a few more (ethnic slur)"...he was off in a heartbeat!

I must be strange, but I enjoyed serving on the Federal Grand Jury. It kicked the shit out of my job at the time. I got compensated by my job in full and 40 dollars a day from the Federal Government plus mileage to drive to the Federal Courthouse. Sucks that it had to end. :(

With all due respect, when is the last time you applied for a job in the legal field? A paper on the death penalty doesn't necessarily mean that there is any political or person interjection within the paper itself. It could merely be stating facts and demonstrating my ability to research a topic. When you apply for positions in the legal field, the step prior to an interview is the recruiting manager (often an Esquire) request a writing sample; as well as a cover letter which explains the why they should hire me aspect and a resume with your credentials. I appreciate the two cents though. If this were for a position in another field A.) THEY (yes they requested) would not ask for a writing sample more than likely and B.) If they did, it would be catered to that field. :peace:

Ok sugar cheeks.......Let me know when you get that job.......

Ok sugar cheeks.......Let me know when you get that job.......

I will honey bunz. <3

I gots an interview on the 4th at 1:30 PM. Woot woot. 6k more than I make now minus probably 3600 for the train per year and not to mention waking up a fuck ton earlier to catch said train. :-\

Justice is both remedy and punishment. not revenge. a victim's death brought upon by a criminal is incurable so therefore remedy of said action will be dealt with death, thus said criminal can not again administer death.

By Saeed Ahmed
CNN

(CNN) -- A woman in rural Papua New Guinea was bound and gagged, tied to a log and set ablaze on a pile of tires this week, possibly because villagers suspected her of being a witch, police said Thursday.

"There are remedies far, far better than to torture and immolate a young woman before she can be judged by a lawful system."

in case you thought i was alone in my thoughts, ark. booyas!

./bump for arky