Hope you rot in hell!!!!! - Page 2

Agathon · February 6, 2004, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Richelieu

I used to be against the death penalty. Life has taken care of that.

Obviously not enough of it. It doesn't work, is massively inefficient, and kills innocent people. What's not to like?

Agathon · February 6, 2004, 21:21

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Actually, what I have in mind for these types is more along the lines of Chiricahua or Mescalero Apache savagery.

Medieval Europeans were such pussies.

Thank you for proving why civilized societies no longer employ the death penalty.

GhengisFarb™ · February 6, 2004, 21:48

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Soooooo....who's for the death penalty?

Because the Death Penalty works.

Notice how these killers avoid Texas like the plague.

The case in this thread is a perfectly good example of WHY THE DEATH PENALTY IS A GOOD IDEA.

Why is it most people don't rob banks?

Is it because they think its wrong? NO.

They don't rob banks because they don't want to go to jail. How do we know this? Because most people upon discovering a bank error in their favor of $6000 won't say squat to the bank. They may not spend the money, but they usually won't say anything to the bank.

The rationale is they didn't do anything wrong. The bank did. The only difference between this and robbing the bank of $6000 is that they don't think there's any chance of them going to jail.

It is the concept and knowledge that they will be punished for their actions they keeps them from doing a bad deed.

"But we can send the bad child molesting murders to time out jail and that is punishment enough to keep them from committing horrible acts of pain."

Bullshit. Most of these people have been to jail before. Some of them grew up there. Its their home. It where they go for Thanksgiving. A threat of sending them to jail means as much to them as threatening a common person with sending them to Burger King.

But Death. That's somewhere they ain't been before. That is a threat many of the hardened criminals take seriously.

This guy most likely raped this little girl.

What was he facing if caught? Jailtime.

If he killed her and she couldn't tell anyone where would that leave him?
Upside: a better chance of getting away with it.
Downside: nothing. He worst penality is still jailtime.

With a Death Penalty there would have been a downside to killing the little girl. His choice would have been Jailtime or Death Chamber. It might have made the difference.

Agathon · February 6, 2004, 22:41

GF - it doesn't work. Countries that don't have the death penalty have much lower rates of this sort of crime. Canada is an example.

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 6, 2004, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Really? List all the good things about the death penalty, other than that a lot of people get a perverted thrill out of it.

Well it seems to cheese you off a bit. Thats always a good thing.

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 6, 2004, 22:53

And if anyone, I mean anyone tried anything like that to my daughter. MY entire existance would be to hunt that person down and slowly exact every ounce of pain I could from his wretched body before he expired.

GhengisFarb™ · February 6, 2004, 22:53

True, and I didn't even mention the perverted thrill benefits.

Imran Siddiqui · February 6, 2004, 22:58

Quote:

Countries that don't have the death penalty have much lower rates of this sort of crime.

Perhaps those who had less crime realized they did not need the death penalty as countries with more crime did. Or perhaps, causation does not equal correlation. Does ANYONE think that if we eliminate the death penalty our crime rates would be less?

GhengisFarb™ · February 6, 2004, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Countries that don't have the death penalty have much lower rates of this sort of crime. Canada is an example.

Because they didn't get rid of the Death Penalty until they had killed all the genetically defective serial killers from their Gene Pool.

Japher · February 6, 2004, 23:02

Quote:

Because the Death Penalty works.

Really? Is that why for the past 20+ years we (California) has been paying for a death row inmate to wait for his execution? To go through appeals and tape cutting... He is do to die soon, and I hope they finally do it... Quick speedy trial my arse!

At least Arnie won't stop it

As for this Florida thingy, I hope this was the guy that was following Che around a while ago killing everyone in his wake

...

GhengisFarb™ · February 6, 2004, 23:07

Which part of the Death Penalty concept does your state not understand?

Once convicted, you KILL them.

Death by Old Age does not count as a Death Penalty.

While we're at it, another clarification for California:

1) Electricity comes from Power Plants, its not generated by "static leprachauns" running around in your walls.

Barinthus · February 6, 2004, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
At least twice a year we get a story like this- there is always some child being murdered..

at this point it amazes me the same level of emotion comes up each time we go over this again and again

The day we all become desensitized to this is a sorrowful day in the history of humanity.

Agathon · February 6, 2004, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Countries that don't have the death penalty have much lower rates of this sort of crime.

Perhaps those who had less crime realized they did not need the death penalty as countries with more crime did. Or perhaps, causation does not equal correlation. Does ANYONE think that if we eliminate the death penalty our crime rates would be less?

Do you think the average crack dealer or gang member who has a life expectancy of a couple of years really worries that 15-20 years down the track he might be executed by lethal injection? And serial killers are not going to be stopped by any threat.

Anyway, what about the innocent? There are in all likelihood innocent people on death row. I suppose you think it is OK that they be sacrificed for a policy that has no demonstrable effect on crime rates?

Lancer · February 6, 2004, 23:09

Kill him, sure. Why? Because then he'll be dead. We shouldn't keep such evil people around. Given the chance I would kill the guy myself, no qualms.

Agathon · February 6, 2004, 23:10

Deterrence:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...cid=12&did=167

All you right wingers are so full of crap. Why don't you just admit that you like killing people?

Barinthus · February 6, 2004, 23:11

I used to be for captial punishment but not anymore. I changed my mind not on moral grounds but on economic grounds. It's cheaper to keep an inmate alive in the system until he drops of old age or whatnot as opposed to trying to bring him to the death chamber. A prisoner sentenced to death has right to appeal, appeal, appeal, and appeal for how many times I don't know. Since he's a prisoner he cannot afford a lawyer therefore the government has to pay for his lawyer, their lawyer, judge, court costs, and so on. Everytime he appeals... I don't have exact figures but I did research on this for a paper a while ago and I assure you it's way cheaper to just sentence criminals to life imprisonment than trying to put them to death.

Imran Siddiqui · February 6, 2004, 23:11

Quote:

Do you think the average crack dealer or gang member who has a life expectancy of a couple of years really worries that 15-20 years down the track he might be executed by lethal injection?

Yes, threat of death is a powerful stopper.

Quote:

And serial killers are not going to be stopped by any threat.

But they'll be stopped by the punishment. They won't be rehabilitated and are just taking up space. Fry the bastards!

Quote:

Anyway, what about the innocent? There are in all likelihood innocent people on death row. I suppose you think it is OK that they be sacrificed for a policy that has no demonstrable effect on crime rates?

Now with DNA the threat is minimized. In all probability some innocents are on death row... but in all probablity you have innocents who died while in jail for 'life'. What's the difference there?

Agathon · February 6, 2004, 23:11

Quote:

China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the United States and Iran are the most prolific executioners in the world. Indeed, the US is one of six countries (including also Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen) which executes people who were under 18 years-old at the time they committed their crimes.

Man, what good company.

I hear the Taliban were fond of the DP too.

GhengisFarb™ · February 6, 2004, 23:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
All you right wingers are so full of crap. Why don't you just admit that you like killing people?

As long as the liberals keep committing crimes in Texas...........

Agathon · February 6, 2004, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Do you think the average crack dealer or gang member who has a life expectancy of a couple of years really worries that 15-20 years down the track he might be executed by lethal injection?

Yes, threat of death is a powerful stopper.

It isn't if you are less likelier to die earlier if you continue a life of crime. And the stats prove over and over again that it is not a deterrent. Murder rates fell in most countries after they abolished it.

Quote:

And serial killers are not going to be stopped by any threat.

But they'll be stopped by the punishment. They won't be rehabilitated and
are just taking up space. Fry the bastards!

It's actually cheaper to keep them in prison. Think of the waste to the court system of the endless appeals.

Quote:

Anyway, what about the innocent? There are in all likelihood innocent people on death row. I suppose you think it is OK that they be sacrificed for a policy that has no demonstrable effect on crime rates?

Now with DNA the threat is minimized. In all probability some innocents are on death row... but in all probablity you have innocents who died while in jail for 'life'. What's the difference there?

The difference is that if you kill them there is not going to be any chance of them being released. If they live 30 or 40 years the chance is greater. And you can be convicted without DNA evidence - tampering etc.

MichaeltheGreat · February 6, 2004, 23:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Thank you for proving why civilized societies no longer employ the death penalty.

I wasn't talking about a social remedy, but a personal one.

And no, if someone murders my children, they will not get a "civilized" response from me.

Bereta_Eder · February 6, 2004, 23:26

What did the Apache do already

Imran Siddiqui · February 6, 2004, 23:27

Quote:

Murder rates fell in most countries after they abolished it.

So if you get rid of the death penalty people will kill less? What kind of ****ed up logic is that? Correlation and causation problem again?

Quote:

It's actually cheaper to keep them in prison. Think of the waste to the court system of the endless appeals.

There is a simple answer to that... you can probably guess.

Quote:

The difference is that if you kill them there is not going to be any chance of them being released. If they live 30 or 40 years the chance is greater. And you can be convicted without DNA evidence - tampering etc.

It's a miniscule difference. I'd rather bury the serial killers instead of having them sit in a cell and continue gaining their cult of personality (ie, Charles Manson).

Agathon · February 6, 2004, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

I wasn't talking about a social remedy, but a personal one.

And no, if someone murders my children, they will not get a "civilized" response from me.

I'd feel the same way. That's why I like having a justice system to prevent Wild West style justice.

Urban Ranger · February 6, 2004, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Does ANYONE think that if we eliminate the death penalty our crime rates would be less?

Do some of the states have no capital punishment? I think that makes the fairest comparison.

Imran Siddiqui · February 6, 2004, 23:30

Quote:

Do some of the states have no capital punishment? I think that makes the fairest comparison.

Well, actually the states with no death penalty have generally higher crime rates than those that do. HOWEVER, that doesn't prove anything. States are different. Iowa and New York are drastically different states. What is good for the goose, isn't always good for the gander.

monolith94 · February 6, 2004, 23:41

If the jails weren't overflowing with pot-smokers, then he probably would've been in jail.

/against the death penalty
/also against murder

GhengisFarb™ · February 6, 2004, 23:42

Isn't it nice that pot-smokers and child molesting murderers get the same fate from our justice system.

Boris Godunov · February 6, 2004, 23:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, actually the states with no death penalty have generally higher crime rates than those that do.

False.

http://www.txdpinfo.org/issues/crimerate.htm

Average of murder rates among death penalty states: 5.5
Average of murder rates among non-death penalty states: 3.6

Spiffor · February 6, 2004, 23:47

Ghengis:
You must agree the Death Penalty doesn't seem to work very well in Mafia games