Humane Execution

What is the best way to kill criminals?

  • Total voters
    25
AlecTheGardener said:
Did I miss the interaction? Please clarify your points. I am confused and believe that we may not be understanding each other correctly here.

Miscommunication I believe.


Capital punishment is not a deterrent
It is expensive
It serves only as a form of revenge
It definitely prevents reoffending
Click to expand...
Your fourth statement contradicts your first and third. Most of the expense you complain about is caused by the movement to end the death penalty, not the execution. A bullet only costs a couple bucks. People sit on death row longer than their victims got to live.
 
Red1966 said:
Your fourth statement contradicts your first and third. Most of the expense you complain about is caused by the movement to end the death penalty, not the execution. A bullet only costs a couple bucks. People sit on death row longer than their victims got to live.
Click to expand...
The word deterrent used in the sense of the justice system works like this:

If mandatory minimums kick in at 100 plants I will be more likely to stay below that number.

The punishment acts as a preventative method. It compels me to avoid commit the crime.

Deterrents act as a preventative method to make sure that EVERYONE, not one person does not commit crimes.

You seem to be hung up on this part. Executions do not serve as a deterrent, they definitely serve as a method of preventing reoffense of crime.

A deterrent no.

A means of preventing reoffending, yes.

They are different concepts.

A state killing murderers does not reduce the amount of homicides that occur.

These concepts are separate and may not be applied over the other. A punishment may be a deterrent but it is not guaranteed. A deterrent will almost always be a punishment.

Are you digging man?
 
Alec, I'm on your side as far as the subject is concerned. I take issue with the argument that it's not a deterrent though.

I've seen studies that agree with you because of a lack of findings. Of course we have no findings. We've done no studies where murder carries 5 - 10 on mon, teus, and wed with life on the rest of the days. Oh, and 90 days on the third Sunday of every month. Are you willing to stand by your assertion or would your psychic powers tell you that a shitload of murders would magically happen one day a month?

There hasn't been a documented case that an innocent man was wrongly executed in decades so I'm not onboard with that as a reason either.

My issue is the state ( or anyone) having the power of life and death over another.

If we must though, bring back public hangings.
 
AlecTheGardener said:
The word deterrent used in the sense of the justice system works like this:

If mandatory minimums kick in at 100 plants I will be more likely to stay below that number.

The punishment acts as a preventative method. It compels me to avoid commit the crime.

Deterrents act as a preventative method to make sure that EVERYONE, not one person does not commit crimes.

You seem to be hung up on this part. Executions do not serve as a deterrent, they definitely serve as a method of preventing reoffense of crime.

A deterrent no.

A means of preventing reoffending, yes.

They are different concepts.

A state killing murderers does not reduce the amount of homicides that occur.

These concepts are separate and may not be applied over the other. A punishment may be a deterrent but it is not guaranteed. A deterrent will almost always be a punishment.

Are you digging man?
Click to expand...
You're trying to define "deterrent" under your own terms. By your standard, nothing can be a deterrent because there is nothing that will prevent EVERYONE from committing crime. Then you contradict yourself with "The punishment acts as a preventative method. It compels me to avoid commit the crime."
 
ginwilly said:
Alec, I'm on your side as far as the subject is concerned. I take issue with the argument that it's not a deterrent though.

. . .

There hasn't been a documented case that an innocent man was wrongly executed in decades so I'm not onboard with that as a reason either.

. . .

My issue is the state ( or anyone) having the power of life and death over another.
Click to expand...
Ok. Let's drop the deterrent thing. I am willing to do that. No problems there.

Let's also drop the idea that innocent people are put to death and that is not an issue.



Precisely what stands to be the main issue is that no, person, state or government should ever have the ability to condemn a human.

The argument: eye for an eye does not add up! Just because a scumbag broke the social contract, violated a slew of natural and man made laws and killed someone . . . Why would anyone lower themselves to this level? I do but understand why so many people push so hard for capital punishment when all that seems to drive them is emotions.


You have a right to life. Everyone does. This is a right that should never be taken from someone.
 
But those you are defending have done exactly that. For that, I think they forfeit the right to life. Should I assume you are also anti-abortion?
 
AlecTheGardener said:
I already posted the 4% statistic about that:


Secondary source
The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent


Primary source
US National Academy Of Sciences
http://m.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1306417111
Click to expand...

i wonder if these people can even run simple statistical analysis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#United_States

^^^that's a list of exonerated death row inmates. what these people are saying is that the justice system is imperfect enough to sentence innocent people to death, but somehow also smart enough to catch EVERY LAST SINGLE WRONGFUL SENTENCE.

that's simply statistically impossible.
 
Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to have it. I disagree. If I knowingly fall down an elevator shaft, have I not forfeited my right to life? I believe committing murder is much the same. Remember, few are given the death penalty for the first murder they commit, unless it was particularly heinous, such as murdering a child.
 
I just looked at your primary source. Their figures are just guesses. Once again, political activists playing fast and loose to further a cause. I'm not accusing you of lying, just being mislead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hanimmal
Russia protest Putin.
6 7 8
Replies
147
Views
11K
hanimmal
hanimmal
hanimmal
In the Aftermath of Trump's election loss.
17 18 19
Replies
379
Views
29K
hanimmal
hanimmal
G
Weed The People: Cannabis, Pacifiers and Human Rights
Replies
0
Views
325
gb123
G
vostok
Kate Steinle: Trump outrage over murder case acquittal
Replies
1
Views
384
_gresh_
_gresh_
G
14 years for selling pot to youth? Lawyers say punishments under Liberal pot bill ludicrous
Replies
0
Views
388
gb123
G
Back
Top