Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Purpose: Permanently removing the offending individual from society, so they cannot personally effect society in any way ever again.

I think a properly implemented Death penalty can provide some deterrence, but simply removing the individual from this earth is also enough of a purpose to keep it around to prevent them from continuing to cause harm. And simply sitting in a cell doesn't mean they cannot cause harm in the future.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Instead, he's alive in prison to continue preaching his ideology.

Right, because when someone dies, people that agree with their ideology just stop believing it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Instead, he's alive in prison to continue preaching his ideology.

Right, because when someone dies, people that agree with their ideology just stop believing it.

No, it doesn't stop it, but its worse than if he was still alive.

If Hitler had fled Germany he would have continued to spread problems, and Neo-Nazism would probably be an actual international threat than a sidelined ideology that isn't really any danger.

"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

The Death Penalty is a morally repugnant practice. There is nothing that it serves that can't be greater served by simply locking someone away for life, apart from appeasing emotional reactionaries with a flaming hard-on for vengeance.

Grey Templar wrote:I have not heard of any recent death penalty cases where eyewitness testimony was the sole evidence used to convict. Its always checked against the forensic evidence to confirm, and its reliability is always questioned I believe.

Don't let police procedural shows fool you, forensic evidence isn't as trustworthy as you seem to think it is.

Grey Templar wrote:As for being on a list with Iran, China, and Saudi Arabia, so what?

So what? It's a list of countries that kill their own citizens. You are aware of this, correct?

I'm sure I could make any number of lists which would have us together with them.

Great defense.

Just being on a list with morally reprehensible people or countries doesn't mean you are suddenly on morally shaky ground.

Sure. But this isn't a list of random bull gak... it's a list of countries that kill their own citizens.

As bad as our justice system is, its nowhere near that bad.

Right, being partway bad is okay, just as long as we're better than someone else.

Which actually illustrates that its not the Death Penalty itself that is a problem. Our numbers of executions are also significantly less than those other countries.

See above.

Edited for Derp.

 feeder wrote:
"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

The Death Penalty is a morally repugnant practice. There is nothing that it serves that can't be greater served by simply locking someone away for life, apart from appeasing emotional reactionaries with a flaming hard-on for vengeance.

As someone who has worked in my State's correctional system, a "life sentence" isn't a punishment. It's an extended vacation, though nowhere as nice as the prisons in some Western European countries.


The problem with capital punishment in the United States is the legal wrangling and ponderous, lengthy appeals process, driving the costs of keeping inmates on death row to outrageous levels.


Back in the day, such was necessary (up to a point) to keep the wrongly convicted from being executed. However, with modern forensic sciences and DNA testing reducing the number of wrongful convictions, an appeals process that drags on for years is no longer necessary, and should be cut back.


If that was done (which will never happen because of feel-good special interests groups), then executing a heinous felon would be a viable economic alternative to housing them for the remainder of their lives.


And believe me, some of the sick and evil individuals I've dealt with, both in my LE and corrections careers, deserve to be put down in the name of justice and closure for the surviving loved ones of the victim(s). There is no reforming these animals, so lengthy (or permanent) incarceration is a waste of time and money.


That's just my opinion. Others will differ.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I think a properly implemented Death penalty can provide some deterrence, but simply removing the individual from this earth is also enough of a purpose to keep it around to prevent them from continuing to cause harm. And simply sitting in a cell doesn't mean they cannot cause harm in the future.

No one has ever been able to present solid evidence that the death penalty serves to deter criminal activity. Indeed, given the mindset required to engage in activity which would warrant such punishment it seems unreasonable to expect any retributive action by the state to have a deterrent effect.

As to further harm: martyrdom is a powerful thing.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

That's just my opinion. Others will differ.

Well, something in your post had to be right.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

The Death Penalty is a morally repugnant practice. There is nothing that it serves that can't be greater served by simply locking someone away for life, apart from appeasing emotional reactionaries with a flaming hard-on for vengeance.

As someone who has worked in my State's correctional system, a "life sentence" isn't a punishment. It's an extended vacation, though nowhere as nice as the prisons in some Western European countries.

An extended vacation? If it's so great, why aren't more people scrambling to get a spot in prison?

 Hordini wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

The Death Penalty is a morally repugnant practice. There is nothing that it serves that can't be greater served by simply locking someone away for life, apart from appeasing emotional reactionaries with a flaming hard-on for vengeance.

As someone who has worked in my State's correctional system, a "life sentence" isn't a punishment. It's an extended vacation, though nowhere as nice as the prisons in some Western European countries.

An extended vacation? If it's so great, why aren't more people scrambling to get a spot in prison?

Gotta agree with Hordini here. What kind of life do you need to be suffering through where prison is something to look forward to?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
As someone who has worked in my State's correctional system, a "life sentence" isn't a punishment. It's an extended vacation, though nowhere as nice as the prisons in some Western European countries.


The problem with capital punishment in the United States is the legal wrangling and ponderous, lengthy appeals process, driving the costs of keeping inmates on death row to outrageous levels.


Back in the day, such was necessary (up to a point) to keep the wrongly convicted from being executed. However, with modern forensic sciences and DNA testing reducing the number of wrongful convictions, an appeals process that drags on for years is no longer necessary, and should be cut back.


If that was done (which will never happen because of feel-good special interests groups), then executing a heinous felon would be a viable economic alternative to housing them for the remainder of their lives.


And believe me, some of the sick and evil individuals I've dealt with, both in my LE and corrections careers, deserve to be put down in the name of justice and closure for the surviving loved ones of the victim(s). There is no reforming these animals, so lengthy (or permanent) incarceration is a waste of time and money.


That's just my opinion. Others will differ.

I'm pretty sure I've seen every single one of those claims word for word off Faux News. Seriously XD

 Breotan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

The Death Penalty is a morally repugnant practice. There is nothing that it serves that can't be greater served by simply locking someone away for life, apart from appeasing emotional reactionaries with a flaming hard-on for vengeance.

As someone who has worked in my State's correctional system, a "life sentence" isn't a punishment. It's an extended vacation, though nowhere as nice as the prisons in some Western European countries.

An extended vacation? If it's so great, why aren't more people scrambling to get a spot in prison?

Gotta agree with Hordini here. What kind of life do you need to be suffering through where prison is something to look forward to?

I'm sure such a life exists, but I'm sure it's an exception, not a rule.

I did read once that in some states petty crime increases in winter months. Apparently, the homeless go and break windows and other vandalism so they can spend the colder months in county lock ups.

 feeder wrote:
"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

Jesus had some words about this in Matthew 15:4. For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

A bit harsh for someone who supposedly preaches the opposite, eh?

Flag on the field, classic "take a single verse and remove all context from it" play, 10 yard penalty.

 Breotan wrote:

 feeder wrote:
"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

Jesus had some words about this in Matthew 15:4. For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

A bit harsh for someone who supposedly preaches the opposite, eh?

I think you are taking that a little out of context.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 feeder wrote:
"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

Jesus had some words about this in Matthew 15:4. For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

A bit harsh for someone who supposedly preaches the opposite, eh?

I think you are taking that a little out of context.

Perhaps, but its quite clear in other areas that the death penalty is an acceptable punishment.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 feeder wrote:
"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

Jesus had some words about this in Matthew 15:4. For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

A bit harsh for someone who supposedly preaches the opposite, eh?

I think you are taking that a little out of context.

Perhaps, but its quite clear in other areas that the death penalty is an acceptable punishment.

That was sarcasm.

There is no perhaps on whether he was taking that line from Matthew out of context because he was.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would say 95.9% of people convicted being correctly convicted is acceptable.

No. That is no where near acceptable. How would you feel if you were one of the 4% that were wrongly convicted?

And sorry, if you have that much chance of error, a permanent punishment is not a moral option. You argument about being locked up and released is not a valid argument, as people who have been locked up and exonerated are given a cash settlement to make up for that. There is no way you can make up to someone if you've killed them for something they didn't do.

Also, an old saying comes to mind...Better 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person is punished.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 feeder wrote:
"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

Jesus had some words about this in Matthew 15:4. For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

A bit harsh for someone who supposedly preaches the opposite, eh?

I think you are taking that a little out of context.

Perhaps, but its quite clear in other areas that the death penalty is an acceptable punishment.

That was sarcasm.

There is no perhaps on whether he was taking that line from Matthew out of context because he was.

To be fair, we are in yet another thread that is entirely based on a lie, started by the same poster who had a long history of starting threads based on either a complete misunderstanding on what the article said or just lying about it, talking about a post in the thread where he claims something says the opposite of what it says.

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would say 95.9% of people convicted being correctly convicted is acceptable.

No. That is no where near acceptable. How would you feel if you were one of the 4% that were wrongly convicted?

And sorry, if you have that much chance of error, a permanent punishment is not a moral option. You argument about being locked up and released is not a valid argument, as people who have been locked up and exonerated are given a cash settlement to make up for that. There is no way you can make up to someone if you've killed them for something they didn't do.

Also, an old saying comes to mind...Better 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person is punished.

That depends. What do those 100 guilty people do when they are free? How many innocent people are being harmed because of that error? If its greater than one then it is actually morally reprehensible to let them loose.

And don't tell me that a cash settlement can actually compensate for being locked up in prison in your eyes. That's just silly.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 feeder wrote:
"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

Jesus had some words about this in Matthew 15:4. For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

A bit harsh for someone who supposedly preaches the opposite, eh?

I think you are taking that a little out of context.

Feeder put out the supposition that Jesus preached against the death penalty. I am saying that he did not.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Also, an old saying comes to mind...Better 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person is punished.

That depends. What do those 100 guilty people do when they are free? How many innocent people are being harmed because of that error? If its greater than one then it is actually morally reprehensible to let them loose.

It always amazes me that you can simultaneously argue against abortion on the basis that it's the taking of an innocent life, but also have repeatedly advocated for the death penalty even if we stipulate sometimes innocent people get executed.

 d-usa wrote:
To be fair, we are in yet another thread that is...

Rule #1, d-usa. You got a problem with me, click that Ignore button and be on your way.

 Breotan wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 feeder wrote:
"Need to be removed", "need to be executed", "irredeemably evil". You know, the total opposite of what ol' JC preaches.

Jesus had some words about this in Matthew 15:4. For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

A bit harsh for someone who supposedly preaches the opposite, eh?

I think you are taking that a little out of context.

Feeder put out the supposition that Jesus preached against the death penalty. I am saying that he did not.

Except you didn't, like at all. You took a quote from Matthew so far out of context it isn't even funny.

Pointing out that the thread title is a lie, that you have a habit of taking articles out of context and claimjng that they say the opposite of what they are saying, and that you are doing the same in this thread both with the ruling and with regards to a chapter of the Bible, none of that is violating rule 1.

If I were to call someone an attention seeking lying troll, that would be against rule 1, but I'm not doing anything like that. I have no idea why you post the things you do, and I'm not going to try to determine a motive. I'm just pointing out a very obvious posting habit, that's all.

 d-usa wrote:
...but I'm not doing anything like that.

And yet you just did exactly that because?

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
...but I'm not doing anything like that.

And yet you just did exactly that because?

I didn't, I posted this:

 d-usa wrote:

If I were...

I never called you a troll or anything else. I point out your posting habits, that's all. And that doesn't violate Rule 1, the forum even has a quote function that lets us quote people to point out what they said.

And meanwhile, the thread title is still a lie, and your Jesus quote is still taken out of context in a thread that takes the ruling out of context.

Edit: I really want to clarify that I'm not being coy here and that I'm really not trying to score an underhanded insult by trying to slip it past the rules. I really honestly don't know why you do it, I just know that it is something that you frequently do and I'm pointing that out without trying to come up with a motive for why you do it. It's just a *shrugs shoulder* "yeah, it's just one of his things, ignore it" *shrugs shoulder* kind of deal for me.

 d-usa wrote:
If I were...

Oh, please. Saying "If I were" is a weaksauce tactic and you know it.

 d-usa wrote:
a thread that takes the ruling out of context.

I provided the exact context of the ruling, the vote, and the fact that the entire ruling is provided in the link I posted.

 Breotan wrote:
More specifically, the system by which a convicted felon is sentenced to death is unconstitutional.

The vote was 8 - 1. The article linked below contains the entire opinion including concurring and dissenting opinions.

http://mashable.com/2016/01/12/scotus-florida-death-penalty/#7bzBC_lOCgqO