Post: #1

Or feed dude for life?

Post: #2

Feed dude for life.

Post: #3

Death

Post: #4

In before race thread.

Yes. Give him a molten steel enema.

Post: #5

To be honest, I sympathize somewhat with this guy because he likely never had a chance. That said, you can't have psychos out on the street killing people in broad daylight and I wouldn't put much credence in the idea that he could ever be reformed. He dug his hole, and now he will drown in it.

Post: #6

Romney tried to get a death penalty with a higher standard of proof when he was governor of Massachusetts. Instead of the usual "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal cases, he proposed a "guilt beyond all possible doubt" standard.

While this sounds good in theory, in practice I don't think it would make much difference, because you can get the wrong kind of jury to do anything. An unattractive defendant and emotional prosecution witnesses, good liars (cops and criminals looking for a break), and the bad luck of coincidental facts equals mistaken conviction. False or fictional confessions are another factor. If you don't think people are framed, you're wrong. Hundreds of guys convicted on these bases were later exonerated after DNA evidence was tested.

The death penalty also strengthens the power of state and helps create a climate of submission.

Post: #7

In theory I am 100% in favor of the death penalty.

However, I have very little faith in the police, investigators, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, juries, and basically everyone involved in the legal process to not execute far too many innocent people.

Post: #8

Eye for an eye. (depends what they did. If you murder someone intentionally for sure.)

Post: #9

In Saudi Arabia the government operated on guy in order to cripple him for life. As punishment for crippling a guy in a fight.

For those who support the death penalty - would you also support the government crippling people as punishments as well?

Serious question. And I am curious as to whether or not people think differently about that than they do to the death penalty.

Post: #10

(04-19-2014 06:10 AM)cardguy Wrote:  In Saudi Arabia the government operated on guy in order to cripple him for life. As punishment for crippling a guy in a fight.

For those who support the death penalty - would you also support the government crippling people as punishments as well?

Serious question. And I am curious as to whether or not people think differently about that than they do to the death penalty.

I think it's more a case that truly evil people don't deserve to share the world with decent people. Not about making them suffer, but just getting rid of them all together.

Crippling someone as punishment is moronic. It is punishing the perpetrators family as well, assuming that they will have to look after and spend money on their crippled brother/son/father, as well as just appearing very sadistic and vengeful.

Post: #11

(04-19-2014 02:58 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  In theory I am 100% in favor of the death penalty.

However, I have very little faith in the police, investigators, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, juries, and basically everyone involved in the legal process to not execute far too many innocent people.

While the work of criminal defense attorneys leads to guilty perpetrators going free, prosecutors have morose incentives to push for longer and unjust sentences. The DA rewards prosecutors who get longer sentences for those they convict, whether they're deserved or not.

Post: #12

(04-19-2014 02:44 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  If you don't think people are framed, you're wrong. Hundreds of guys convicted on these bases were later exonerated after DNA evidence was tested.

But that's just it: we have DNA convictions now, so it should be easy to avoid false accusations.

Now that we have DNA testing, what reason is there to oppose the death penalty?

Post: #13

@big poppa - doesn't the death penalty punish the murderer's family as well?

Post: #14

(04-19-2014 10:01 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 02:44 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  If you don't think people are framed, you're wrong. Hundreds of guys convicted on these bases were later exonerated after DNA evidence was tested.

But that's just it: we have DNA convictions now, so it should be easy to avoid false accusations.

Now that we have DNA testing, what reason is there to oppose the death penalty?

Well most notably, it is somewhat barbaric. Personally, I don't oppose the death penalty because society sometimes kills the wrong person, that's merely grist for my mill.

(04-19-2014 09:15 AM)big poppa Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 06:10 AM)cardguy Wrote:  In Saudi Arabia the government operated on guy in order to cripple him for life. As punishment for crippling a guy in a fight.

For those who support the death penalty - would you also support the government crippling people as punishments as well?

Serious question. And I am curious as to whether or not people think differently about that than they do to the death penalty.

I think it's more a case that truly evil people don't deserve to share the world with decent people. Not about making them suffer, but just getting rid of them all together.

I might argue that sentiment itself is an evil one.

Post: #15

James Altucher said a funny thing once.

When thinking about his political beliefs - he realised he was pro-death.

Pro Abortion.

Pro Euthanasia.

Pro Death Penalty.

It is a funny way of thinking about shit.

Post: #16

We can neutralize threats to society without perpetrating the same crimes that those threats have committed.

I'm surprised more pro-lifers aren't also against the death penalty.

A lot of them believe that life and death should be in god's hands, not man's.

Post: #17

(04-19-2014 01:40 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  I might argue that sentiment itself is an evil one.

That's just moral posturing, plain and simple. There's nothing evil about wanting to get rid of society's worst.

Post: #18

(04-19-2014 02:21 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 01:40 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  I might argue that sentiment itself is an evil one.

That's just moral posturing, plain and simple. There's nothing evil about wanting to get rid of society's worst.

What are you getting rid of exactly?

Societies worst.. first thing that comes to mind is "an eye for an eye"
that's definitely one of the worst concepts to build a society on.

Post: #19

(04-19-2014 02:23 PM)soup Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 02:21 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 01:40 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  I might argue that sentiment itself is an evil one.

That's just moral posturing, plain and simple. There's nothing evil about wanting to get rid of society's worst.

What are you getting rid of exactly?

Societies worst.. first thing that comes to mind is "an eye for an eye"
that's definitely one of the worst concepts to build a society on.

Not sure what youre saying here. It looks like youre just taking a jab at religion by putting the "eye for an eye" in quotation marks. This isnt religious at all. If a person commits premeditated murder, we shouldnt be keeping him/her around. Whats so terrible about that?

Post: #20

(04-19-2014 02:21 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 01:40 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  I might argue that sentiment itself is an evil one.

That's just moral posturing, plain and simple. There's nothing evil about wanting to get rid of society's worst.

It isn't moral posturing, I'm merely making an argument. Know what happens where people believe that evil people don't deserve to share society with everyone else? You get gulags. You get social justice warriors deciding what is evil and attempting to sick the force of the state down upon it.

If you're in favor of the death penalty, that's fine, although I disagree with you. Mete out justice based on an action, not upon someone being motivated by evil. If your fight is to rid the world of evil then don't complain when someone else accuses you of being evil and brings a hangman's noose to your door.

Post: #21

We don't keep them around. We take them out of society.

"Eye for an eye" isn't religious. It's Hamurabi's code. Ancient. It promotes vengeance and vendettas, and didn't do a good job of prevent people from committing crimes.

Jesus actually said "turn the other cheek" which is the opposite (and a little too far in the opposite direction because I don't believe people should just "take it")

If you really want to take care of the problem of premeditated murder, you might want to look at the systemic causes of homicide. Go deeper.

Post: #22

(04-19-2014 02:36 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 02:21 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 01:40 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  I might argue that sentiment itself is an evil one.

That's just moral posturing, plain and simple. There's nothing evil about wanting to get rid of society's worst.

It isn't moral posturing, I'm merely making an argument. Know what happens where people believe that evil people don't deserve to share society with everyone else? You get gulags. You get social justice warriors deciding what is evil and attempting to sick the force of the state down upon it.

If you're in favor of the death penalty, that's fine, although I disagree with you. Mete out justice based on an action, not upon someone being motivated by evil. If your fight is to rid the world of evil then don't complain when someone else accuses you of being evil and brings a hangman's noose to your door.

Agree with you there. I probably should have phrased it better.

Post: #23

(04-19-2014 02:23 PM)soup Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 02:21 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 01:40 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  I might argue that sentiment itself is an evil one.

That's just moral posturing, plain and simple. There's nothing evil about wanting to get rid of society's worst.

What are you getting rid of exactly?

Societies worst.. first thing that comes to mind is "an eye for an eye"
that's definitely one of the worst concepts to build a society on.

Exactly, and societies are built by conquering (mass killing) other societies.

No death penalties, but if a convict wants to die he should be allowed assisted suicide.

Post: #24

I would love to be an executioner! I wish that it was still a thing.

Post: #25

(04-19-2014 10:01 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 02:44 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  If you don't think people are framed, you're wrong. Hundreds of guys convicted on these bases were later exonerated after DNA evidence was tested.

But that's just it: we have DNA convictions now, so it should be easy to avoid false accusations.

Now that we have DNA testing, what reason is there to oppose the death penalty?

In fact only a small percentage of cases involve DNA. For example, your usual armed robbery is not likely to have any DNA evidence in it. If you shoot someone, unlikely your DNA is left around. DNA in death penalty cases is mostly limited to your rape/murders or murders by hand (i.e. DNA from scratched skin under the fingernails of the deceased, saliva from bites, etc.).

Exonerations because of DNA are significant because they are a statistical bellwether of a much larger number of wrongful convictions because of bad eyewitness identification, lying by cops, snitches and people out for revenge, false confessions, bad luck coincidences, and police framing. In other words, there are many ways you can be wrongfully accused and convicted, but DNA is one of the few sure ways to get out of it. No DNA = no way out. For every one guy who got out because of DNA, there are at least ten more stuck because there was no DNA in their case.

A good example of such cases is shown in the documentary The Thin Blue Line.