Should the Death Penalty be abolished

jeebs said:
All over the place? No, I have a coherent nuanced position. My first post stated that as currently constructed I would abolish the death penalty (kills to many innocents, costs to much, and takes to long to kill the guilty), that said I do believe in the death penalty, and would support it if competently manage.

Only liberals could take a good idea (which they disagree with) then enact it so badly that their incompetence is their justification for not enacting said idea..
Click to expand...

First you say no as it currently is, then you say kill them get it over with. Yeah all over the place.
 
jeebs said:
Agreed, but as currently enacted it still costs more. Better to be canceled than the status quo, but better than both would be some damn judicial and penal (ha) reform.
Click to expand...

I have already said that I think the process should be faster and cheaper to get them to the death chair. Argue it from another angle, or we just are agreeing.
 
2233boys said:
Yes what other purpose is there. The comments in here have reinforced that opinion.
Click to expand...

Deterrence, restitution, moral regard, immoral control, etc.
 
jeebs said:
I don't believe I mentioned revenge. Done properly it is just the most expeditious route to eliminate those who have invalidated their right to live in and be over from society.
Click to expand...

You have not, although your kill them and be done with it comment makes me wonder .
 
Last edited:
Iamtdg said:
I have already said that I think the process should be faster and cheaper to get them to the death chair. Argue it from another angle, or we just are agreeing.
Click to expand...

The only difference I can see in our positions is I do believe a significant % of those convicted of crimes are innocent, so if I am killing people and leaving no room for recourse, then I want as strict of a line as possible. And I am fine with some borderline cases being given life in prison. I mean even eliminating the borderline cases, we would still be executing more with the more efficient process, which we both think should be enacted.
 
2233boys said:
First you say no as it currently is, then you say kill them get it over with. Yeah all over the place.
Click to expand...

That is only all over the place if you can't step back and look at the whole picture.
 
jeebs said:
The only difference I can see in our positions is I do believe a significant % of those convicted of crimes are innocent, so if I am killing people and leaving no room for recourse, then I want as strict of a line as possible. And I am fine with some borderline cases being given life in prison. I mean even eliminating the borderline cases, we would still be executing more with the more efficient process, which we both think should be enacted.
Click to expand...

I would like to see the percentages of the innocent people executed versus guilty.
 
Iamtdg said:
Deterrence, restitution, moral regard, immoral control, etc.
Click to expand...

Restitution how? There is no proof it is deterrence to a crime or will control the immoral. Moral regard for the victim, how does capital punishment accomplish that where as life in prison does not?
 
2233boys said:
Restitution how? There is no proof it is deterrence to a crime or will control the immoral. Moral regard for the victim, how does capital punishment accomplish that where as life in prison does not?
Click to expand...

Do you have proof that it isn't a deterrent? I would stack my chips on it being a much better deterrent than not.

Death is a much better deterrent than having your way paid the rest of your life instead of having to earn it... kinda like the life most of them were living before they killed someone.
 
jeebs said:
Well, that is hard. When people are known innocent, thy are rarely executed.
Click to expand...

I meant the ones that were killed that turned out innocent. I would like to see that.
 
Iamtdg said:
A dozen over the history of the death penalty? I would say we don't need 12 innocent deaths to predicate justification of further appeals.
Click to expand...
No, since 1973, which puts it at 1% of the time we are pretty sure we got it wrong, and 10% of the time we almost get it wrong
 
Iamtdg said:
Do you have proof that it isn't a deterrent? I would stack my chips on it being a much better deterrent than not.

Death is a much better deterrent than having your way paid the rest of your life instead of having to earn it... kinda like the life most of them were living before they killed someone.
Click to expand...

Make them earn it. Put them to work. I have no issue with that.

Since 1993 states without the death penalty have fewer murders
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
 
I do not advocate more alles, I argue for a striver burden if proof. I agree with 1 appeal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom