Death Penalty

[Mr. Shaman]

Yes, I'm against the death penalty - in this and all cases. It doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't save resources, it doesn't deter future criminals, it doesn't bring back the victims and - most importantly - it grants the state an ultimate and final power I'd prefer they not have.

And while it doesn't seem to apply in this case, too often the state gets it wrong.

I completely disagree....first nothing will bring back the victums, so that arguement is a red herring.
It does save resources and it is a deterrant...

Bullshit!!!!!!!​

"A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”

The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research."

Criminologists' Views On Deterrence​

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes, I'm against the death penalty - in this and all cases. It doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't save resources, it doesn't deter future criminals, it doesn't bring back the victims and - most importantly - it grants the state an ultimate and final power I'd prefer they not have.

And while it doesn't seem to apply in this case, too often the state gets it wrong.

I completely disagree....first nothing will bring back the victums, so that arguement is a red herring.
It does save resources and it is a deterrant...

Bullshit!!!!!!!​

"A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”

The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research."

Criminologists' Views On Deterrence​

Youre right, that's why all the criminals choose the death penalty over jail and waive their appeals to have the death penaly executed....OH WAIT THEY DONT, WHY????? Because they dont want to DIE!!!!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Life in prison is only legit when they are forced to sit in a cell without TV for 23 hours a day with only 1 hour to shower and exercise.

Otherwise, someone with a life prison living their life out watching TV, taking classes, working, etc all inside a prison is a crime against the victim.

Life in prison should be damaging to someone's brain i.e. living by themselves for the rest of their life in a cell without outside contact.

Ah, yes.....​

....Reagan-style mental-health-care.

Well i'm glad you support criminals, is it because they ride you like a bike?

No.

Unlike you....I'm better-educated on the subject, Goober.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Another study with consensus, do liberals ever look at logic and real world. Why do states with the harshest punishments ahve the lowest crime rates? hmmmmmmm.....but hey 3 out of 4 dentists agree crest is the best toothpaste, so it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[buckeye45_73]

Ah, yes.....​

Well i'm glad you support criminals, is it because they ride you like a bike?

No.​

Unlike you....I'm better-educated on the subject, Goober.​

yep you sure are....wow let me see, all this guy needs is a hug and he'll be a perfect citizen.....I get it.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Yes, I'm against the death penalty - in this and all cases. It doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't save resources, it doesn't deter future criminals, it doesn't bring back the victims and - most importantly - it grants the state an ultimate and final power I'd prefer they not have.

And while it doesn't seem to apply in this case, too often the state gets it wrong.

I completely disagree....first nothing will bring back the victums, so that arguement is a red herring.
It does save resources and it is a deterrant...the problem is if you let someone liver for 20 years before killing them, then yeah it kinda loses the intended effect. I mean in the 30s they mowed people down within a year, that's amuch better solution.
As for the state having the power, well juries convict people of crimes, so in essence it's us the people that would sentance these people to the just cause of killing their evil worthless asses.

Why let them out on technicalities or "good" behavior, or why should family memember have to relive the death every year because of parole hearings. Kill the moron and closure can start. No reason people have to fear some idiot will get off or out of jail due to some bullshit. Sorry but allowing these monsters to live is cruel and unusual punishment to us sane people.

I mean I see liberals more upset over gun control than a guy who shoots people and then comes back to make sure he finished them off or one that shoots children, but lets ignore all that and bitch about guns........yeah liberals are compasionate.....for the CAUSE only.

Just to be clear, I don't really care either way. In this case it seems pretty obvious that he did it, so I really wouldn't care if they did. But I am just arguing one point you are making.

Deterrant, there is actually little to no evidence that it is a deterrant. There is actually a reverse correlation between states that allow the death penalty and murder rate, i.e. those that allow it or speed it up have the highest murder rates.

Now of course correlation is not causation, and in no way am I arguing that the death penalty increases murder rate, I see no way that could happen. But if it is a deterrant, it is a very weak one.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Judge sends man to prison for molesting girl

As Itzen spoke, Benbo hung his head. He didn't speak during the proceeding, but his attorney, public defender Traci Lacock, told the judge her client had significant health problems and almost nocriminal history.

you use her as credibility, wow she thinks he should molest kids because he has mental issues and health problems and ALMOST no criminal history.....yeah she's a winner

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So are you against the Death Penalty for the piece of shit "Joker" in Colorado?

I'd like to get your explanation if so...

Yes, because the state should not be allowed to kill.

Really the state doesnt kill, people like me a jury, do. Heck I'd pull the switch if they asked me.

Yeah.....that's what a lot o' John-Wayne-fan/assholes say......


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM5HascXqLU]MSNBC The Ed Show Rachel Maddow interview Allen Ault former Georgia Commisioner of Corrections - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHyk9b--HQA]Dr. Allen Ault on Death Penalty - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes, I'm against the death penalty - in this and all cases. It doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't save resources, it doesn't deter future criminals, it doesn't bring back the victims and - most importantly - it grants the state an ultimate and final power I'd prefer they not have.

And while it doesn't seem to apply in this case, too often the state gets it wrong.

I completely disagree....first nothing will bring back the victums, so that arguement is a red herring.
It does save resources and it is a deterrant...the problem is if you let someone liver for 20 years before killing them, then yeah it kinda loses the intended effect. I mean in the 30s they mowed people down within a year, that's amuch better solution.
As for the state having the power, well juries convict people of crimes, so in essence it's us the people that would sentance these people to the just cause of killing their evil worthless asses.

Why let them out on technicalities or "good" behavior, or why should family memember have to relive the death every year because of parole hearings. Kill the moron and closure can start. No reason people have to fear some idiot will get off or out of jail due to some bullshit. Sorry but allowing these monsters to live is cruel and unusual punishment to us sane people.

I mean I see liberals more upset over gun control than a guy who shoots people and then comes back to make sure he finished them off or one that shoots children, but lets ignore all that and bitch about guns........yeah liberals are compasionate.....for the CAUSE only.

Just to be clear, I don't really care either way. In this case it seems pretty obvious that he did it, so I really wouldn't care if they did. But I am just arguing one point you are making.

Deterrant, there is actually little to no evidence that it is a deterrant. There is actually a reverse correlation between states that allow the death penalty and murder rate, i.e. those that allow it or speed it up have the highest murder rates.

Now of course correlation is not causation, and in no way am I arguing that the death penalty increases murder rate, I see no way that could happen. But if it is a deterrant, it is a very weak one.

The problem is as constructed it's not a detterant. Lets look at the issue.
First not all states have it
Second you dont always get it for first degree murder, in fact I'd say it's not that often percentagewise
Third you have appeals that take forever that the case is ancient history and most of the people involved or family members are old or dead by the time they get justice

That's crap, you make public hangings, and give them a year to show something serious (not bullshit technicallities) is wrong, or else bye bye. People dont like to die, probably the strongest will we have is to survive, so I really find it hard to believe that the death penalty doesnt work, IF people fear it.
It's kinda like crying wolf, after a while you dont believe them or take it seriously, criminals dont take the death penalty seriously, because it takes sooo long to kill someone.... Ted Bundy was around 15 years and I cheered when I heard he was dead, and it should have been much much sooner.

I keep finding jewels in your video. It's really expensive after ALL the court costs, see lets simplify and make it serious instead of waiting 20 years to kill someone. And he said a guy went back to kill his witnesses before they reinstated the death penalty, because he weighed the penalties in his mind...hmmmmmm....so before the death penalty it was better to kill witnesses because even if you got caught, the risk of leaving them alive was worse than the penalty of killing them....interesting.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes, because the state should not be allowed to kill.

Really the state doesnt kill, people like me a jury, do. Heck I'd pull the switch if they asked me.

Yeah.....that's what a lot o' John-Wayne-fan/assholes say......​

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM5HascXqLU"]MSNBC The Ed Show Rachel Maddow interview Allen Ault former Georgia Commisioner of Corrections - YouTube[/ame]
*​

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHyk9b--HQA"]Dr. Allen Ault on Death Penalty - YouTube[/ame]​

So he said his first 2 were in 17 years and they were different people at the end...well NO SHIT!!!!

The book is 2 inches thick...to kill a murder....what a crock. hang em, watch him squirm and then cheer the death. I'm sorry but after what these people do to innocent people, I feel no sorrow or pain for those people.

I wonder if he saw crime scene photos of what these guys did to get there, I bet that was far more gruesome.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

I completely disagree....first nothing will bring back the victums, so that arguement is a red herring.
It does save resources and it is a deterrant...the problem is if you let someone liver for 20 years before killing them, then yeah it kinda loses the intended effect. I mean in the 30s they mowed people down within a year, that's amuch better solution.
As for the state having the power, well juries convict people of crimes, so in essence it's us the people that would sentance these people to the just cause of killing their evil worthless asses.

Why let them out on technicalities or "good" behavior, or why should family memember have to relive the death every year because of parole hearings. Kill the moron and closure can start. No reason people have to fear some idiot will get off or out of jail due to some bullshit. Sorry but allowing these monsters to live is cruel and unusual punishment to us sane people.

I mean I see liberals more upset over gun control than a guy who shoots people and then comes back to make sure he finished them off or one that shoots children, but lets ignore all that and bitch about guns........yeah liberals are compasionate.....for the CAUSE only.

Just to be clear, I don't really care either way. In this case it seems pretty obvious that he did it, so I really wouldn't care if they did. But I am just arguing one point you are making.

Deterrant, there is actually little to no evidence that it is a deterrant. There is actually a reverse correlation between states that allow the death penalty and murder rate, i.e. those that allow it or speed it up have the highest murder rates.

Now of course correlation is not causation, and in no way am I arguing that the death penalty increases murder rate, I see no way that could happen. But if it is a deterrant, it is a very weak one.

The problem is as constructed it's not a detterant. Lets look at the issue.
First not all states have it
Second you dont always get it for first degree murder, in fact I'd say it's not that often percentagewise
Third you have appeals that take forever that the case is ancient history and most of the people involved or family members are old or dead by the time they get justice

That's crap, you make public hangings, and give them a year to show something serious (not bullshit technicallities) is wrong, or else bye bye. People dont like to die, probably the strongest will we have is to survive, so I really find it hard to believe that the death penalty doesnt work, IF people fear it.
It's kinda like crying wolf, after a while you dont believe them or take it seriously, criminals dont take the death penalty seriously, because it takes sooo long to kill someone.... Ted Bundy was around 15 years and I cheered when I heard he was dead, and it should have been much much sooner.

Its very hard to argue against that because there aren't many examples of it. While no doubt that people want to live, most people have morals that stop them. Also spending the rest of your life in jail is a pretty big deterrant. I think most people that commit murder are either enraged beyond belief, think they are going to get away with it, or don't really care.

Here is the reverse correlation I was talking about.
For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9

For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8

For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

The state with what I believe is the fastest way to the death penalty, Texas, in the last three years was 5.0, 5.4, 5.6. Each year ranking as one of the highest murder rates in the entire country. In fact, only one state that doesn't have a death penalty did worse then Texas (Michigan).

 

[Mr. Shaman]

what a fine Christian you are.

Correction:​

A fundamentalist-Christian.​

​

Obviously you're not, Your an atheist that loves criminals that shoot people....

oooooooooooooooo....you're a mind-reader, too, huh, Skippy??!!

I'd expect a little-man-o'-faith (like you) would KNOW how the Bible refers to you mystic-type folks!!! ​

 

[Caroljo]

I'm against the death penalty, it lets the scumbags off too easy. Let 'em sit in a cage for the rest of their lives.

And feed the Major pork chops...

The guys was how old? 24? Hell i don't want to help pay to keep him in prison the rest of his life! We have enough of them! If he's not completely crazy - he needs the death penalty!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yes. The death penalty's only known purpose is to deter crime. Was this guy deterred?

Exactly.....especially if he's mentally-ill.....as is ANYONE who can kill another individual; guilt-free.​

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes. The death penalty's only known purpose is to deter crime. Was this guy deterred?

Exactly.....especially if he's mentally-ill.....as is ANYONE who can kill another individual; guilt-free.​

No the death penalty isnt just about detterance, it's about JUSTICE, that's the number one reason to have it, deterance is a bonus, but hey lets pay for a guy that wiped out 12 people for the rest of his life and give him conjugal visits, meals, xbox, exercise, learning, and then maybe we can spring him when he's 40 and "rehabilitated" and so 12 dead people dont matter....yeah that's a great idea

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yes. The death penalty's only known purpose is to deter crime. Was this guy deterred?

Well with all this liberal crap that made a mockery of the death penalty, staying on death row for 20 years? WTF?????

Yeah, Skippy....that's what we need......

.....more-limited appeals!!!

 

[buckeye45_73]

Just to be clear, I don't really care either way. In this case it seems pretty obvious that he did it, so I really wouldn't care if they did. But I am just arguing one point you are making.

Deterrant, there is actually little to no evidence that it is a deterrant. There is actually a reverse correlation between states that allow the death penalty and murder rate, i.e. those that allow it or speed it up have the highest murder rates.

Now of course correlation is not causation, and in no way am I arguing that the death penalty increases murder rate, I see no way that could happen. But if it is a deterrant, it is a very weak one.

The problem is as constructed it's not a detterant. Lets look at the issue.
First not all states have it
Second you dont always get it for first degree murder, in fact I'd say it's not that often percentagewise
Third you have appeals that take forever that the case is ancient history and most of the people involved or family members are old or dead by the time they get justice

That's crap, you make public hangings, and give them a year to show something serious (not bullshit technicallities) is wrong, or else bye bye. People dont like to die, probably the strongest will we have is to survive, so I really find it hard to believe that the death penalty doesnt work, IF people fear it.
It's kinda like crying wolf, after a while you dont believe them or take it seriously, criminals dont take the death penalty seriously, because it takes sooo long to kill someone.... Ted Bundy was around 15 years and I cheered when I heard he was dead, and it should have been much much sooner.

Its very hard to argue against that because there aren't many examples of it. While no doubt that people want to live, most people have morals that stop them. Also spending the rest of your life in jail is a pretty big deterrant. I think most people that commit murder are either enraged beyond belief, think they are going to get away with it, or don't really care.

Here is the reverse correlation I was talking about.
For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9

For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8

For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

The state with what I believe is the fastest way to the death penalty, Texas, in the last three years was 5.0, 5.4, 5.6. Each year ranking as one of the highest murder rates in the entire country. In fact, only one state that doesn't have a death penalty did worse then Texas (Michigan).

The problem with the figures is why was Michigan higher? I'm gonna say that states with black folks probably tend to have higher murder rates, just look at the cities, Flint, Detroit, Oakland, Memphis, Chicago, waht's in common, so I agree that people dont always conciously think of that, but why should they? I mean we had how many murders last year and how many executions, I'd love to see that ratio,

Study: Can executions decrease murder rates? | abc7news.com

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes. The death penalty's only known purpose is to deter crime. Was this guy deterred?

Well with all this liberal crap that made a mockery of the death penalty, staying on death row for 20 years? WTF?????

Yeah, Skippy....that's what we need......​

.....more-limited appeals!!!

​

yeah we just need to send them to a week of counseling and they'll be ok. Why put them in jail at all?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Really the state doesnt kill, people like me a jury, do. Heck I'd pull the switch if they asked me. Murderers are people that are subhuman, and justice calls and it's not saying set them in a prison with xbox and conjugal visits.

If you want to kill go out and do it yourself. If more people like me get on juries you might get away with it when you kill people that shoot up theaters.

I'm just saying I dont see how people dont want to kick this guy in the balls until he dies.

'Cause we're not supposed to allow sick, sadistic-pricks (who would do that) to administer justice, in this Country.​

 

[buckeye45_73]

If you want to kill go out and do it yourself. If more people like me get on juries you might get away with it when you kill people that shoot up theaters.

I'm just saying I dont see how people dont want to kick this guy in the balls until he dies.

'Cause we not supposed to allow sick, sadistic-pricks (who would do that) to administer justice, in this Country.​

So you'd rather have a guy shoot 12 people, nice. Sorry man, but people like you must have never seen or been a victum of crime or really care about those that have. Sorry you say that is sick and sadistic, so what is what the guy did? I never see you mention the criminal and how bad he is.....interesting.