The death penalty

[Drackonisa]

Ted Bundy committed no crimes in February 1989, or ever again. Ever.

If you can't actually address that, you're wasting both of our time.

No really, why aren't you applying the "they'll never do anyhting agaaaaaaaain" logic to innocent people executed? I really want to see you do it. :3

and why would you want to execute innocent people for ostensibly shits and giggles? If they are innocent, then there would be no case to hang them. After all, allowing the death penalty doesn't mean we just grab a random dude off the street and hang him.

[Alyakia]

No, there should be no 'death penalty cases'.

There should be cases.

You seem to LOVE talking about how they'll never commit a crime again, so you seem to understand how the death penalty is inherently different from any other punishment we have. I don't know why it doesn't follow why treating cases which may result in this inherently different punishment being applied the same as every other case is maybe something you shouldn't do.

[Trixiestan]

They're not necessary? So.... Can you seriously imagine applying the death penalty without these "added costs" in a real world context? If so, explain how this would work...

You're acting like it would be hard.

If someone is found guilty of a sufficiently heinous crime, with a sufficiently strong case against them (effectively, incontrovertible), then they are taking to a place of lawful execution, where they are executed.

Normal trial cost. Normal transport cost. Far less cost in accommodation and resources. Elapsed time closer to minutes than decades.

So you're literally talking about the systematic murder of criminals just so the privileged masses can sleep better at night knowing that those nasty, wasty people on crime watch won't come and get them in the night? Your opinions on the death penalty are like something out of Brass Eye.

[Alyakia]

No really, why aren't you applying the "they'll never do anyhting agaaaaaaaain" logic to innocent people executed? I really want to see you do it. :3

and why would you want to execute innocent people for ostensibly shits and giggles? If they are innocent, then there would be no case to hang them. After all, allowing the death penalty doesn't mean we just grab a random dude off the street and hang him.

Ignoring all the cases where people who were guilty turned out to be not so guilty after all?

[JJ Place]

Ted Bundy was also behind maximum security bars, that would have kept him from committing any addition crimes. Murdering Ted Bundy, however, did not end any future crimes committed in his name; death ends a remarkably small amount of phenomena, and perpetuates a number more consequences.

Ted Bundy committed no crimes in February 1989, or ever again. Ever.

If you can't actually address that, you're wasting both of our time.

Ted Bundy was sentenced to be locked away for the rest of his natural occurring days in a maximum security prison, where he wouldn't have been able to commit any additional crimes because of his sentence. Ending a person's life does not end their crimes, death merely inflames situations, the death of one man perpetuating additional, and worse, crimes.

[Drackonisa]

You're acting like it would be hard.

If someone is found guilty of a sufficiently heinous crime, with a sufficiently strong case against them (effectively, incontrovertible), then they are taking to a place of lawful execution, where they are executed.

Normal trial cost. Normal transport cost. Far less cost in accommodation and resources. Elapsed time closer to minutes than decades.

So you're literally talking about the systematic murder of criminals just so the privileged masses can sleep better at night knowing that those nasty, wasty people on crime watch won't come and get them in the night? Your opinions on the death penalty are like something out of Brass Eye.

murder is a harsh word. I prefer the word 'retribution'.

Why waste tax payer money on human scum which only serve to leech of society? Those who have nothing to contribute nor contributed anything should be culled from our society, to reduce the burden on the country. Criminals have proven themselves to be unworthy of being functioning members of society and as such must be treated as the thrash and subhuman scum that they are. I despise every last one of them.

[Grave_n_idle]

Reminds me, you never said whehter you'd be willing to be the sacrifice or have your wife/kids be the sacrifice.

There are probably hundreds of posts that I don't reply to. Either because they are unattributed, I don't see them, I don't think they are important, or I just don't care to.

Your question isn't honest. I'm not talking about volunteering people up for sacrifice. I'm talking about accepting risk.

Am I willing to accept that risk, myself? Absolutely.

Because if we don't kill literally everyone we're LETTING them kill our children.

Again,a dishonest misrepresentation. The choices aren't 'kill everyone' or 'kill no one'.

So they should be put in with the general population? Or they should just be killed straight away, what could possibly go wrong?

I thought I was pretty clear. Sentence, transport to place of execution. Execute.

When you bring in a mass murderer, are you going to put him in with the rest of the prisoners while he waits for trial? You do like to talk about inmates murdering inmates.

You don't bring in a mass murderer. You bring in a man or woman ACCUSED of being a mass murderer.

But will it happen?

Maybe. That doesn't impact the question of whether it should.

Are lawyers, knowing that their failure or success today may kill a man, going to spend the same amount of time preparing as they do for every case? Are you saying that, knowing there is a chance a man may be killed, and understanding how serious this is, that the lentgh of preparation time will be the same as all other cases?

In the advertisements where they say that the washing powder is 'new and improved'... there is obviously the counterpoint that the previous model must have been older, and a bit crappier.

Your argument is like that. ALL trials should be fully prepared and supported as strongly as possible. There shouldn't be two-tiers, where one of them is an open admission that your lawyer just isn't working as hard as he could.

Cases and cases that may or may not result in people being killed.

Just cases.

Sometimes, some of the more serious ones, where the evidence is beyond just compelling... there might be an execution. But the case is just a case.

[-St George]

And thus you support the murder of innocent people by the state. Herp.

define 'innocent'. Convicted criminals who do nothing other than waste society's resources deserve to die, end of story.

people wrongfully convicted of murder.

[Alyakia]

So you're literally talking about the systematic murder of criminals just so the privileged masses can sleep better at night knowing that those nasty, wasty people on crime watch won't come and get them in the night? Your opinions on the death penalty are like something out of Brass Eye.

murder is a harsh word. I prefer the word 'retribution'.

Why waste tax payer money on human scum which only serve to leech of society? Those who have nothing to contribute nor contributed anything should be culled from our society, to reduce the burden on the country. Criminals have proven themselves to be unworthy of being functioning members of society and as such must be treated as the thrash and subhuman scum that they are. I despise every last one of them.

1) There is no such thing as subhuman.
2) Treating people as subhuman makes them act subuhman. Shocker.
3) What happens when an innocent guys gets treated like thrash and subhuman scum?
4) Comedy option: What if your treatment of him as subhuman breaks him and turns him into a suchuman?
5) What is your job? What have you contributed to society? Just wonderin'

[Grave_n_idle]

Ted Bundy committed no crimes in February 1989, or ever again. Ever.

If you can't actually address that, you're wasting both of our time.

No really, why aren't you applying the "they'll never do anyhting agaaaaaaaain" logic to innocent people executed? I really want to see you do it. :3

I have no idea what the purpose of this post was... it seems like you're complaining that I don't make the arguments you wish I had.

?

[Grave_n_idle]

You're acting like it would be hard.

If someone is found guilty of a sufficiently heinous crime, with a sufficiently strong case against them (effectively, incontrovertible), then they are taking to a place of lawful execution, where they are executed.

Normal trial cost. Normal transport cost. Far less cost in accommodation and resources. Elapsed time closer to minutes than decades.

So you're literally talking about the systematic murder of criminals...

No, since murder is, by definition, illegal.

...just so the privileged masses...

Everyone?

Being protected from crime shouldn't be considered a 'privilege'.

...can sleep better at night knowing that those nasty, wasty people on crime watch won't come and get them in the night?

Ignoring the silliness... are you actually suggesting you find fault with the idea of keeping violent criminals away from the sleeping populace?

[Drackonisa]

define 'innocent'. Convicted criminals who do nothing other than waste society's resources deserve to die, end of story.

people wrongfully convicted of murder.

Then we have to accept them as unfortunate but albeit necessary sacrifices. You cannot remove the death penalty on some off-chance that one out of the multitudes of scumbags bound for the gallows might be innocent. Those guilty of capital crimes deserve to die.

How many people are wrongfully convicted of murder in recent past? I don't know about america but in all my years in singapore we haven't had a wrongful hanging. Criminal investigations tend to be very efficient here.

[Trixiestan]

So you're literally talking about the systematic murder of criminals just so the privileged masses can sleep better at night knowing that those nasty, wasty people on crime watch won't come and get them in the night? Your opinions on the death penalty are like something out of Brass Eye.

murder is a harsh word. I prefer the word 'retribution'.

Why waste tax payer money on human scum which only serve to leech of society? Those who have nothing to contribute nor contributed anything should be culled from our society, to reduce the burden on the country. Criminals have proven themselves to be unworthy of being functioning members of society and as such must be treated as the thrash and subhuman scum that they are. I despise every last one of them.

"Why waste tax payer money on human scum which only serve to leech of society? Those who have nothing to contribute nor contributed anything should be culled from our society, to reduce the burden on the country. INSERT MINORITY HERE have proven themselves to be unworthy of being functioning members of society and as such must be treated as the thrash and subhuman scum that they are. I despise every last one of them."

[Grave_n_idle]

Ending a person's life does not end their crimes...

Show me one crime Ted Bundy committed after 7:16 a.m. Eastern time, on the 24th of January, 1989.

Just one.

[-St George]

people wrongfully convicted of murder.

Then we have to accept them as unfortunate but albeit necessary sacrifices. You cannot remove the death penalty on some off-chance that one out of the multitudes of scumbags bound for the gallows might be innocent. Those guilty of capital crimes deserve to die.

How many people are wrongfully convicted of murder in recent past? I don't know about america but in all my years in singapore we haven't had a wrongful hanging. Criminal investigations tend to be very efficient here.

Or said person hasn't lived long enough for such evidence proving their innocence to come to life. That's what happens when you have few appeals, and fewer resources for said appeals.

[Drackonisa]

murder is a harsh word. I prefer the word 'retribution'.

Why waste tax payer money on human scum which only serve to leech of society? Those who have nothing to contribute nor contributed anything should be culled from our society, to reduce the burden on the country. Criminals have proven themselves to be unworthy of being functioning members of society and as such must be treated as the thrash and subhuman scum that they are. I despise every last one of them.

1) There is no such thing as subhuman.
2) Treating people as subhuman makes them act subuhman. Shocker.
3) What happens when an innocent guys gets treated like thrash and subhuman scum?
4) Comedy option: What if your treatment of him as subhuman breaks him and turns him into a suchuman?
5) What is your job? What have you contributed to society? Just wonderin'

1. There is: Criminals.
2. Criminals already forfeit their right to be considered human beings in my books.
3. How often are innocent people convicted of crimes? The minority that do, hard cheese then.
4. Hang him with all the rest. Ideally, wrongful convictions should be kept to minimum.
5. Air force, engineer. Never committed a crime, paid my taxes and do social work during free time. Considered contribution?

[Drackonisa]

murder is a harsh word. I prefer the word 'retribution'.

Why waste tax payer money on human scum which only serve to leech of society? Those who have nothing to contribute nor contributed anything should be culled from our society, to reduce the burden on the country. Criminals have proven themselves to be unworthy of being functioning members of society and as such must be treated as the thrash and subhuman scum that they are. I despise every last one of them.

"Why waste tax payer money on human scum which only serve to leech of society? Those who have nothing to contribute nor contributed anything should be culled from our society, to reduce the burden on the country. INSERT MINORITY HERE have proven themselves to be unworthy of being functioning members of society and as such must be treated as the thrash and subhuman scum that they are. I despise every last one of them."

What does a minority have anything to do with this? A criminal can be from any background.

[Alyakia]

There are probably hundreds of posts that I don't reply to. Either because they are unattributed, I don't see them, I don't think they are important, or I just don't care to.

Your question isn't honest. I'm not talking about volunteering people up for sacrifice. I'm talking about accepting risk.

Am I willing to accept that risk, myself? Absolutely.

Well, you did literally use the word sacrifice in one of your posts. That might confuse people.

If you were on the table, about to be killed, woud you turn to the executioner and say "thank you for protecting me"?

Again,a dishonest misrepresentation. The choices aren't 'kill everyone' or 'kill no one'.

A quick reminder that a large part of your argument of risk is hinged on setting up the illusion that the choice is "have the death penalty" or "have murderers roaming the streets".

I thought I was pretty clear. Sentence, transport to place of execution. Execute.

And before the trial? Where do they go? Do you intend to pull a trial, complete with forumlated defences and prosecutions, out of your arse?

You don't bring in a mass murderer. You bring in a man or woman ACCUSED of being a mass murderer.

Ahahahahahahhaha holy fucking shit, after everything you've posted in this goddamned thread, you seriously had the goddamned audicity to say that to me?

So, uh, do you put this accussed mass murderer in with the rest of the population? To possibly kill people or be killed?

Maybe. That doesn't impact the question of whether it should.

If you can't stop it happening and all you can do is say "well it shouldn't!" I see no reason to pretend it's not going to happen for the sake of your argument.

So, you're going to take the longer pre-trial phase, etc. from the death penalty and apply them to all cases? Will we have a huge pre-trial phase for parking tickets?

[Alyakia]

for the record lawyers actually are pretty lazy

[Alyakia]

No really, why aren't you applying the "they'll never do anyhting agaaaaaaaain" logic to innocent people executed? I really want to see you do it. :3

I have no idea what the purpose of this post was... it seems like you're complaining that I don't make the arguments you wish I had.

?

You love to talk about how murderers will never commit another crime after being executed.

You never seem to talk about how an innocent person will never be released/revived after new evidence exonerating them comes to light.

[Drackonisa]

You could dump the accused for capital crimes into detention cells for the period of their trial to keep them from causing trouble. Thought that was standard procedure?

[Alyakia]

people wrongfully convicted of murder.

Then we have to accept them as unfortunate but albeit necessary sacrifices. You cannot remove the death penalty on some off-chance that one out of the multitudes of scumbags bound for the gallows might be innocent. Those guilty of capital crimes deserve to die.

How many people are wrongfully convicted of murder in recent past? I don't know about america but in all my years in singapore we haven't had a wrongful hanging. Criminal investigations tend to be very efficient here.

Pretty much every first world country except 2 or 3 have removed on the chance that some of the scumbags bound for the gallows have been innocent and they seem to be doing pretty fine.

[Alyakia]

1) There is no such thing as subhuman.
2) Treating people as subhuman makes them act subuhman. Shocker.
3) What happens when an innocent guys gets treated like thrash and subhuman scum?
4) Comedy option: What if your treatment of him as subhuman breaks him and turns him into a suchuman?
5) What is your job? What have you contributed to society? Just wonderin'

1. There is: Criminals.
2. Criminals already forfeit their right to be considered human beings in my books.
3. How often are innocent people convicted of crimes? The minority that do, hard cheese then.
4. Hang him with all the rest. Ideally, wrongful convictions should be kept to minimum.
5. Air force, engineer. Never committed a crime, paid my taxes and do social work during free time. Considered contribution?

Hard cheese? Seriously? Hard fucking cheese?

p.s. no really there is no such thing as subhuman stop using that word it's kinda a bad word to use

[Alyakia]

people who are fine with harming a minority (for example, by executing innocent people or tortuing innocent people because criminals are scum) should immediately become part of that minority

since i apparently hate the rich this would be pretty sweet for me while ya'll learn important life lessons

[JJ Place]

Ending a person's life does not end their crimes...

Show me one crime Ted Bundy committed after 7:16 a.m. Eastern time, on the 24th of January, 1989.

Just one.

Sure, I can find you many crimes committed in Ted Bundy's name after his death. I might direct you to a larger phenomena than one psychotic serial killer's legacy, effects a bit longer reaching, of a man's execution that sparked far more than he could have accomplished in life.

Execution never end a person's effects on the world, their execution only intensifies their effects; if you believe otherwise, you'll want to consider this man, who grew from a mere rebel, into much more:

Jesaus: