[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 08:41 PM, said:

I do not need to explain who or why or what criteria is required for someone to decide on the punishment as you seem to think that I do.

Well of course not, in the sense that you don't "have to" do anything you don't want to do. But if you want your answer to have meaning...

Do you think it makes your view seem more valid to toss the little 'end of discussion' on your characterization of my views? I'm sure including something that I have never come close to implying feels much better than actually, oh I don't know, making an argument in support of what you think. In fact, it seems like it would be much more accurate to stick a sarcastic remark like that on the characterization of the person who believes "Cases such as these need no "argument" for the existence of capital punishment. They speak for themselves. If you do not understand why, then there is no point in trying to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise. "

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

Do you think it makes your view seem more valid to toss the little 'end of discussion' on your characterization of my views?

I'm not sure why I would even argue with someone who hasn't bothered to even read the original question.

I tossed nothing in, that was the phrasing of the original question.

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 09:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

Do you think it makes your view seem more valid to toss the little 'end of discussion' on your characterization of my views?

I'm not sure why I would even argue with someone who hasn't bothered to even read the original question.

I tossed nothing in, that was the phrasing of the original question.

I'm not sure you are even arguing. 'I'm right and if you don't understand why then too bad for you' is not an argument. Nor do you have any idea whether I even voted in the poll.

[the hog]

bid_em_up, on Feb 21 2008, 05:18 AM, said:

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty. Maybe you have not been through the experience of knowing anyone who was murdered. I do, one of my teachers was murdered along with the sister of one of my classmates when I was 12, both shot in the back of the head, or maybe you are unaware of some of the heinous crimes that are committed in our country.

Rest of the diatribe snipped....

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

This is one of the saddest, sorriest posts that I have ever read on this forum. I find it difficult to conceive of the fact that there are people in this world who hold such gross views as these.

[finally17]

sceptic, on Feb 21 2008, 02:33 AM, said:

finally17, on Feb 21 2008, 01:18 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

Cases such as these need no "argument" for the existence of capital punishment.  They speak for themselves.  If you do not understand why, then there is no point in trying to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise.

Chuck, you're smarter than this. This claim is just silly.

it is not silly, you just disagree with it

No, it's SILLY. I wouldn't call a reasoned argument that Chuck made silly, whether I agreed with it or not. But the idea that these crimes speak for themselves, that they are in and of themselves proof positive that the death penalty is necessary, and that he doesn't need to make a reasoned argument because everyone who disagrees with him is just too stubborn or stupid to be convinced, well that's just plain SILLY. And it's exactly what he's said.

He could make an argument, and then I'd disagree with him most likely. Or maybe he'd convince me, who knows? But it wouldn't be silly. What he's done is.

Quote

actually if you read the poll again, it has not thing to do with what people believe is right, it was giving tw o choices what you would do, I have never claimed my opinion is right, just that it is my opinion, one which if you read what I say, is that I do believe in certain circumstances I believe the death penalty is what I would want

As for the poll, it most certainly does have something to do with what people think is right. The choices are "yes, needed sometimes," or "no, is bad, end of discussion." These two choices don't leave room for a pro-capital punishment party. They both assume that it's a last resort, and it's perfectly clear that the intended dividing line "is it ever acceptable?" By the way, if you would read the freaking thread instead of pulling crap out of your rear, you'd know exactly where I stand, I posted my opinion in the first 15 or so responses.

You have an emotional opinion that you can't fully express, that's perfectly fine. But allow the rest of us to say that we believe that when the question is of human life on the line, no matter how impassioned the situation, we choose to take the stance that we don't have the right to take another's life except in defense of self or others. You may call it unemotional and cold, but in fact I think some of us are very passionate about it.

As for jdonn's post, you really need to go back and read it again. There are clear quote marks. He didn't say "I'm right," he told Chuck "you're saying 'I'm right and no discussion is necessary.'" Which is exactly what Chuck is saying. Read a little more closely, you'll get farther in life.

Sorry to speak for you Josh...I was annoyed and on a roll.

[finally17]

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

finally17, on Feb 20 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

Cases such as these need no "argument" for the existence of capital punishment.  They speak for themselves.  If you do not understand why, then there is no point in trying to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise.

This claim is just silly.

You may think so. I don't.

It's not really a question of what you think. Your claim is not one of opinion and subjectivity. You made a claim of fact: that these murders clearly require, with no explanation necessary, the execution of the death penalty on their perpetrators.

This SIMPLY IS NOT true on its face. It may be true (I'm not at the moment arguing one way or the other), but it is not obviously evident, period. To say that it is, when carefully considered, is quite honestly very insulting to those of us who disagree. You're essentially saying we're too stupid to see an obvious truth. That's why I call it silly, because I don't think you honestly mean to draw this conclusion, but you have.

Now, you can say that it's too complicated, or emotional, or that you don't want to argue it, or whatever. You can make an argument that human life isn't sacrosanct, or say "I believe in an eye for an eye," or "for the safety of the other inmates" or whatever. But you can't just hop into a discussion with a bunch of intelligent people and expect to get away with the statement "it is obvious and you all are just too stubborn to see it."

Give reason or say you won't give reason, but don't say "no reasoning is necessary."

[Gerben42]

I don't like the general idea of ruling out things completely. "No death penalty ever" doesn't sound right to me for this reason. It's so black and white. In reality, nothing ever is.

[helene_t]

Gerben42, on Feb 21 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

I don't like the general idea of ruling out things completely. "No death penalty ever" doesn't sound right to me for this reason. It's so black and white. In reality, nothing ever is.

I suppose you are right. I can imagine a small, primitive society consisting of some 30-40 people, and the behavior of a single individual became a threat to the survival of the group. No resources for keeping the person locked up. One could try to amputate both of his legs to make him less dangerous, but the care he would need then would be a terrible burden on the group, and besides he might very well die due to wound infections. I think I would be pro death penalty in such a case.

I have more troubles imagining a case applying to a civilized society. I might be wrong. Just after the WW II, some European countries decided to execute some of the nastier Nazi collaborators and then abolish the death penalty afterwards. I wasn't around at that time but I might have agreed with that policy if I were.

As for Charles' claim that it is "obvious" that some criminals deserve to die, well, I suppose it's obvious given certain core values which I just happen not to share.

But to me, it's just a matter of degree. I don't think anyone "deserves" to die (actually, the word "deserve" makes no sense to me in such contexts) but I don't think criminals "deserve" to go to prison, either. I do think imprisonment of dangerous persons is practical, and that some kind of punishment is practical to deter others from committing crime. I don't think capital punishment in practical but I might be wrong in some cases.

[finally17]

sceptic, on Feb 21 2008, 04:40 AM, said:

I dont like the comment about going further in life, you have no idea what I am or what I do in life, nor do you have any idea what my life is like, I would not consider being thought of as a rationaled well thought out poster on here would in anyway enhance my life, I accept you may think I am talking crap, that is an opinion you are entitled to and probably does apply to me on occasions, if you feel on this occasion great you are entitled to think that and even post it.

Sorry, but if you can't handle a bit of sarcasm you should try and temper your own responses first. You called someone arrogant for something you completely misread. I don't like that. I only recently started posting on these forums, and the first two threads I participated in to any degree I had my share of words for jdonn. We're not best buds, I just happen to agree with him this time, I think. But my comment was pure sarcasm in response to your rather extreme reaction to something you misread. You could be the CEO of a Fortune 500, or an average high school history teacher, or a janitor in an office building, it wouldn't have changed my comment. It was irrespective of where you are in life.

For what it's worth, I generally appreciate the unquoted portion of your post.

[kenberg]

This topic does get people worked up. There are the practical arguments and there are the moral arguments and there is something to be said for trying to keep them compartmentalized.

Deterrence: I'm no expert, but whatever deterrent effect it may have is surely far less than other factors. An earlier post from a Maine resident remarked that there is no death penalty there. I recall being in Maine in August a few years back and the news was that while the murder rate had been 15% lower from the preceding year, it had now returned to the previous level. A lot of recent carnage, I figured. Well, sort of. There had been a triple slaying, bringing the number for the year so far from17 to 20. That's a figure that many states that have the death penalty can only dream of. Executing a murderer does, as has been noted, deter him from repeating his crime but I think that's about it.

It seems likely to me that a strong deterrent would come from a strong likelihood of capture and punishment. It won't work for everyone, nothing does, but I am guessing that many people contemplating a crime do not ask themselves what the punishment is if they get caught but rather whether they think they will be caught.


Moral issues: I find it useful to imagine myself giving him the needle. Earlier I said I would, in some cases, lose no sleep but I hedged a bit. I haven't applied for the job. Passing laws that have someone inject the needle is morally not that much distant from doing it yourself. Capital punishment may be not so much about what the murderer did as it is about who we wish to be. Maybe it sounds new-agey or whatever, but I think it's a point.

Anyway, let me say that I don't think people who oppose the death penalty are stupid and I don't think those who favor it are heartless. Also, I took the poll question to be an opening to a topic, not as a strict limitation on acceptable responses.

[Codo]

Gerben42, on Feb 21 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

I don't like the general idea of ruling out things completely. "No death penalty ever" doesn't sound right to me for this reason. It's so black and white. In reality, nothing ever is.

But each death is a black and white descission in itself, so you better don´t use the death penalty according to your own rules.

I think, I do understand the feelings of the people who like a capital punishment. But I don´t share their view because I follow another ethic. We must do everything to make live last as long as possible.
Under any circumstances. This may often be not in the will of the one who has to live longer. But nobody should rule when a live has to end.

This is not just about murderers. It is about old people, ill people, "mentally challenged people and any kind of people too.
We as a social group should not kill. For no reason besides selfdefence.

IF you have another ethic and think that your group should not even kill in selfdefence, this is great for you.

Or if you think you are allow to kill for reason a, b and or c, this is fine to me. About 22,5 % here agree with you, kill these bastards.

The rest has another ethic.

I am with Josh, that it is difficult to set the borderline. Do you just execute 10 times murderers? Or just if they kill kids? Or do you kill just the guys who are so "evil" that they should leave this planet?
Who is the judge? Where is the border?

These questions had never been answered by the pro death penalty fraction.
I guess this is because there is no answer. You must decide in each single case. But if you do so, you can be lucky to find a judge who dislikes the needle, or you have a fan of the needle. This sounds not fair at all.

I really belive that you make yourself much more problems with the death penalty then without. If you use the capital punishment as it is done in the USA, it is even more expensive then a life in jail.

So the chinese way at least is cheaper then that. But this can never be a reason for the death penalty- at least not in so rich societies as ours.

[jvage]

There is a perspective I have not seen discussed in previous posts. I have no scientific basis and expect American posters to correct me if this is wrong, but my impression from mainstream media is that in the US one can often escape the death penalty if your lawyers "cut a deal" including a confession, even for very serious offences like serial murders.

To me this creates a problem, since it is likely to increase the risk that someone innocent are executed. As a sidenote, I should probably put "innocent" in brackets, since the people involved are often criminals, but they may not be guilty of the more serious crimes they are charged with. The problem is that those who don't confess, even if there is strong evidence and they know this means they will be executed if convicted, is very likely to contain at least some innocent.

My main argument against the death penalty is just the finality, unlike on BBO there is no "undo". The alternative is not even letting some guilty person off the hook (they still end up with life or at least a very long prison sentence), but to me even that would be preferable to executing someone innocent.

John

[kenberg]

jvage, on Feb 21 2008, 08:57 AM, said:

There is a perspective I have not seen discussed in previous posts. I have no scientific basis and expect American posters to correct me if this is wrong, but my impression from mainstream media is that in the US one can often escape the death penalty if your lawyers "cut a deal" including a confession, even for very serious offences like serial murders.

To me this creates a problem, since it is likely to increase the risk that someone innocent are executed. As a sidenote, I should probably put "innocent" in brackets, since the people involved are often criminals, but they may not be guilty of the more serious crimes they are charged with. The problem is that those who don't confess, even if there is strong evidence and they know this means they will be executed if convicted, is very likely to contain at least some innocent.

My main argument against the death penalty is just the finality, unlike on BBO there is no "undo". The alternative is not even letting some guilty person off the hook (they still end up with life or at least a very long prison sentence), but to me even that would be preferable to executing someone innocent.

John

I think that it also can create another problem, and I think it is not just theoretical. Suppose that you are poor and not very smart. You have just been arrested for a murder that you did not commit. The police believe that you did do it and they give a strong argument that they can convict you. They intend to seek the death penalty but will take that off the table if you confess and accept life imprisonment. Your play?

In theory, a good lawyer can protect a person from this. In practice, I'm not so sure. Sure, the police probably believe he did it on the general grounds that he has already done a lot of bad stuff and so we are not speaking of an upright citizen here. Still... .

The flip side of this, of course, is that if you did do it then the police strategy may get a certain life sentence rather than a chancy trial. But it's not the way justice is supposed to work.

I don't find the whole thing simple at all.

[bid_em_up]

finally17, on Feb 21 2008, 03:39 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

finally17, on Feb 20 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

Cases such as these need no "argument" for the existence of capital punishment.  They speak for themselves.  If you do not understand why, then there is no point in trying to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise.

This claim is just silly.

You may think so. I don't.

It's not really a question of what you think. Your claim is not one of opinion and subjectivity. You made a claim of fact: that these murders clearly require, with no explanation necessary, the execution of the death penalty on their perpetrators.

This SIMPLY IS NOT true on its face. It may be true (I'm not at the moment arguing one way or the other), but it is not obviously evident, period. To say that it is, when carefully considered, is quite honestly very insulting to those of us who disagree. You're essentially saying we're too stupid to see an obvious truth. That's why I call it silly, because I don't think you honestly mean to draw this conclusion, but you have.

Now, you can say that it's too complicated, or emotional, or that you don't want to argue it, or whatever. You can make an argument that human life isn't sacrosanct, or say "I believe in an eye for an eye," or "for the safety of the other inmates" or whatever. But you can't just hop into a discussion with a bunch of intelligent people and expect to get away with the statement "it is obvious and you all are just too stubborn to see it."

Give reason or say you won't give reason, but don't say "no reasoning is necessary."

First, the original poll question was, to me, essentially one of "is it necessary to have a death penalty" and we were given two choices. My reading of the choices was of a manner that said:

"Yes, sometimes it is an appropriate sentence"

or

"No, capital punishment is never needed, end of discussion."

I gave examples of cases why I think that sometimes the death penalty is an appropriate sentence and that it should exist. The cases, in and of themselves, speak to the fact that some people are capable of committing crimes of such a nature that show that the person who committted the crimes is no longer a functioning part of society. They are subhuman. They are mere pieces of trash and sometimes the garbage must be taken out, no matter how ugly it may be.

Now, you may not like that statement or attitude, and I really don't care if you don't. You are entitled to your own opinion.

However, if you honestly believe that someone who rapes a 10 year old girl and then buries her alive or that someone who feeds a FIVE year old to an alligator somehow deserves or has the right to live out the rest of their lives in prison (which, to me, is exactly what you are saying if you think the death penalty is never appropriate) while these young innocent children died terrifying deaths at their hands, then, yes, I think your opinion (not you) is stupid.

Their right to exist ceased the moment they chose to commit such crimes.

[pclayton]

jvage, on Feb 21 2008, 05:57 AM, said:

There is a perspective I have not seen discussed in previous posts. I have no scientific basis and expect American posters to correct me if this is wrong, but my impression from mainstream media is that in the US one can often escape the death penalty if your lawyers "cut a deal" including a confession, even for very serious offences like serial murders.

To me this creates a problem, since it is likely to increase the risk that someone innocent are executed. As a sidenote, I should probably put "innocent" in brackets, since the people involved are often criminals, but they may not be guilty of the more serious crimes they are charged with. The problem is that those who don't confess, even if there is strong evidence and they know this means they will be executed if convicted, is very likely to contain at least some innocent.

My main argument against the death penalty is just the finality, unlike on BBO there is no "undo". The alternative is not even letting some guilty person off the hook (they still end up with life or at least a very long prison sentence), but to me even that would be preferable to executing someone innocent.

John

Sometimes the defendant will cop a plea, especially if the murder had extenuating circumstances.

Then there's O.J.

Don't get me started

[jdonn]

sceptic, on Feb 21 2008, 07:52 AM, said:

actually I called jdonn arrogant as I base that on what he said and several other of his posts in other threads, I do not think I misinterpreted his post

you did, it means exactly what finally17 said, and quite clearly so.

Quote

but that may be subjective based on how I want to read what he says

it is

Quote

I tend to get the feeling with that particular poster, that he thinks he is some kind of super star

I'm not. why are you even still talking about me? I tried to stop replying to your posts and you just talk about me over and over and over...

Quote

I suppose youth and more hormones than he can handle at this time in his life are to blame or the fact I am an old fart and possibly set in my ways

But if I dare try to speak about you I wonder what would happen...

Quote

as for handling sarcasm, it is difficult to tell the nature of how something is written in a forum

finally17 seemed to understand it quite well. And you simply misunderstood the grammar, which is not hard to believe reading your posts.

Quote

but one of jdonn's comments about me not handling things that are said, I really think you do not know me

oh sorry only you get to judge other people, I must be an arrogant superstar with a hormone problem to think I could say anything about you

Quote

I do not get annoyed about anything said on here about me

that is obviously false

Quote

the way I write is not based on an extreme reaction (EVER)

Shall we go back to your very first post in this thread?

[helene_t]

Sorry Wayne, but this is getting sick. Maybe Josh wrote something in some other thread that made him deserve an ad hominem attack (I haven't read all his posts) but in that case I think you should just report those posts to the moderators and leave it by that.

Just my humble opinion on an off-topic issue.

[han]

I actually like some of the things sceptic has written in this thread a lot. Especially the part about posting even if you don't have a well thought out opinion or can't always phrase your thoughts as well as some others.

I do think it is clear that sceptic misread jdonn's post.

[jdonn]

Sorry to all about the hijacking. I'll go back to the original topic and make the observation that many people for capital punishment are making the argument "some people don't deserve to live" whereas many people against it are arguing "no one has the right to kill any other person". However it is entirely possible to believe both those statements are true, which (I think) would argue against capital punishment. I think to be in favor you would have to specifically believe the first is true and the second is false. I definitely believe the second is true which is the basis of my argument, and to be honest I try to avoid thinking about the first.

[Al_U_Card]

Hey Josh

Since your signature was a problem, might I suggest...

arrogant superstar with a hormone problem

it might not have anything to do with you, but it certainly has a ring to it....