InsaneTrain Forums
debate part 2 - Printable Version

+- InsaneTrain Forums (https://insanetrain.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: General Forum (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: debate part 2 (/showthread.php?tid=10030)

Pages: 1 2

debate part 2 - pepsi - 08-31-2004

Quote:Originally posted by Tom Foolery@Aug 31 2004, 12:09 AM
I'd like to hear your views on why it is OK for a judge and jury to decide the fate of another person...why allow them to "Play God"?  What about states that already have the death penalty in place--do you have any evidence that supports capital punishment is actually a deterrent? 

You didn't debate--you only shared your views.  If you seriously want to debate I want facts, opinions from experts, and a solid foundation before I get more invovled.  I don't think you're capable of meeting those requirements, so this thread will probably join the other shit SnD threads in the IT gutter.
[snapback]67249[/snapback]
Ill get back to you Tom since Im short on time right now I cant fully get into it. Since you want facts and everything a good responce will be a little more timely.

debate part 2 - TomFoolery - 08-31-2004

Quote:Originally posted by pepsi@Aug 31 2004, 01:11 AM
Ill get back to you Tom since Im short on time right now I cant fully get into it. Since you want facts and everything a good responce will be a little more timely.
[snapback]67262[/snapback]


To be honest, it's not necessary for you to come up with a response. I think you're trying to prove to others here that you're not an idiot by wanting to "debate", but even if you could come up with some information that supports your views I don't think you'd have much luck convincing members here that you aren't a total dumbass. You should probably just save your time.

debate part 2 - ClayRock - 08-31-2004

...to add, most of us don't care anyway Confusedmoke:

debate part 2 - retiredroadie - 08-31-2004

Quote:If capital punishment was actually used more often the crime rate will go down and the streets would be safer to live on.

Actually countries in places like Africa enforce the death penalty quickly, chop off hands for burglery and such. The crime rate increases very rapidly every year.

The problem with people on death row, is they have no hope or purpose in their life. They act on the moment and consequences mean nothing. They pull a gun and shoot. You could have executed 5 guys that week and if a guy has no hope, looking for food or money, he is going to shoot. He lives for the moment and for his own survival.

Discuss

debate part 2 - leucetios - 08-31-2004

Quote:Originally posted by pepsi@Aug 30 2004, 04:07 PM
Not acceptable but they will be paid for their losses.
[snapback]67260[/snapback]


Explain? How do you "pay" someone for their "losses" when you've killed them?

debate part 2 - TomFoolery - 08-31-2004

SnD, are you aware of the average cost per executed prisoner compared to one that is jailed for life? Take into consideration the average death row inmate that is executed goes through 9 appeals...think of the court costs and other factors that affect the taxpayers...

debate part 2 - Banana - 08-31-2004

Quote:Originally posted by TomFoolery@Aug 31 2004, 11:14 AM
SnD, are you aware of the average cost per executed prisoner compared to one that is jailed for life?  Take into consideration the average death row inmate that is executed goes through 9 appeals...think of the court costs and other factors that affect the taxpayers...
[snapback]67440[/snapback]
While I agree, this is a problem with the broader judicial system. I don't want to pay for a death row inmate or one who is jailed for life (not that I have to in Canada). But, I have real problems with some sadistic sick fuck getting three square meals per day, cheap cigarettes, and funded education for his lifetime. I wish we could torture them......

debate part 2 - MarkyGman - 08-31-2004

Why is there an intellectual discussion going on in a thread started by SnD? Kind of an oxymoron.

debate part 2 - pepsi - 08-31-2004

Quote:Originally posted by TomFoolery@Aug 31 2004, 01:39 AM
To be honest, it's not necessary for you to come up with a response.  I think you're trying to prove to others here that you're not an idiot by wanting to "debate", but even if you could come up with some information that supports your views I don't think you'd have much luck convincing members here that you aren't a total dumbass.  You should probably just save your time.
[snapback]67266[/snapback]
Giving up already Tom.

debate part 2 - TomFoolery - 08-31-2004

Quote:Originally posted by pepsi@Aug 31 2004, 08:02 PM
Giving up already Tom.
[snapback]67540[/snapback]

Is that a statement or are you asking me a question?

debate part 2 - leucetios - 08-31-2004

Quote:Originally posted by banana@Aug 31 2004, 09:19 AM
While I agree, this is a problem with the broader judicial system.  I don't want to pay for a death row inmate or one who is jailed for life (not that I have to in Canada).  But, I have real problems with some sadistic sick fuck getting three square meals per day, cheap cigarettes, and funded education for his lifetime.  I wish we could torture them......
[snapback]67443[/snapback]


Not sure torture is the right idea. Doesn't that lower society as a whole, or at least the poor person you've hired to do your dirty work, to the level of the killer? Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard than the people we're deciding need to not be a part of society?

debate part 2 - Banana - 08-31-2004

Quote:Originally posted by leucetios@Aug 31 2004, 01:18 PM
Not sure torture is the right idea.  Doesn't that lower society as a whole, or at least the poor person you've hired to do your dirty work, to the level of the killer?  Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard than the people we're deciding need to not be a part of society?
[snapback]67560[/snapback]
In reality, yes. But, theoretically, I'd like them to have the same pain inflicted upon them as they inflicted upon others. I think it would be a bigger deterrent than institutionalization. But, since we are not barbaric people, I understand why this should/would never occur.

debate part 2 - leucetios - 08-31-2004

Quote:Originally posted by banana@Aug 31 2004, 11:25 AM
In reality, yes.  But, theoretically, I'd like them to have the same pain inflicted upon them as they inflicted upon others.  I think it would be a bigger deterrent than institutionalization.  But, since we are not barbaric people, I understand why this should/would never occur.
[snapback]67569[/snapback]


You think torture would be a greater detterent? I don't. I think that a swift (no appeals, no waiting ten years on death row) death for people convicted of cases where there is incontrovertible evidence of the crime would be more of a deterrent. No hanging out on death row. You go from court, to a cell, to the chair within a matter of days. I think that would actually be more of a deterrent.

Now, the problem. and the argument I left myself open to is: what defines "incontrovertible" and what do you do for the cases where there isn't incontrovertible evidence?

I dunno yet :S

debate part 2 - Banana - 08-31-2004

Well, there are cases where it's clear cut -- kill the bastard. But, death is an easy option. I neither want to give them the easy out, nor provide their daily meals with my money. If you were a sick bastard, and knew you would never be cured, what would stop you from murdering someone to ensure your inevitable death? Just a thought to ponder. I've seen guys place others at risk simply because they were too scared to kill themselves.

debate part 2 - TomFoolery - 08-31-2004

Quote:Originally posted by leucetios@Aug 31 2004, 08:30 PM
You think torture would be a greater detterent?  I don't.  I think that a swift (no appeals, no waiting ten years on death row) death for people convicted of cases where there is incontrovertible evidence of the crime would be more of a deterrent.  No hanging out on death row.  You go from court, to a cell, to the chair within a matter of days.  I think that would actually be more of a deterrent.

Now, the problem. and the argument I left myself open to is: what defines "incontrovertible" and what do you do for the cases where there isn't incontrovertible evidence?

I dunno yet :S
[snapback]67574[/snapback]

Let's let SnD get back into the debate before this goes much further...

debate part 2 - leucetios - 08-31-2004

**bites tongue**

debate part 2 - MarkyGman - 08-31-2004

Quote:In America, the average cost of a capital punishment case is $3.2 million (US)  - - -  BBC News


The only place where it is not expensive is Singapore, but in that country it is up to the accused to prove his/her innocense. So most "trials" end up quick and unjust.

debate part 2 - Beaucephus - 08-31-2004

Personally, I am privy to the idea of public hangings, stonings, etc. While it does sound a bit primitive, you have to take into account that we are a visual people. We thrive more on what we see than what we hear or read. I truly believe that witnessing the consequences of severe criminal actions would act as a fantastic deterrent for would be felons. Plus, then I could get some licks in on some of these sick child molesting fucks out there to boot.

The death penalty is not full proof but it is still effective to a certain degree in our society. I am aware that there are bound to be innocent people on death row at the moment. Thus, the appeals process. While not full proof, it is still the best in the world today. The true justice for death row criminals lies with the victims. They need solace. They need a "the end" to their nightmares. The death penalty gives them that. While it is more expensive in the long run, yes. At least it provides some comfort closure to the families of brutally murdered victims. Perhaps in the future through better DNA testing and advancements in the forensic process we can narrow down the level of mistakes concerning the imprisonment of innocent people. But for right now, this is the best we have. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. :dev: