The death penalty

[Alyakia]

And boy do you love talking about it!

No.

It is, however, the guiding principle that lies behind my argument.

So... when we defend or explain our arguments, it's key.

And you also don't like to talk about how innocent people won't be realeased/revived after they're executed. You even cut it out of the post you were quoting.

Because it's irrelevant.

I'm not talking about the innocent. They shouldn't be being found guilty.

I swear to god I'm going to take a train down there and personally smack you if you say "irrelevant" again.

Yes. They shouldn't be. But they will. They always will. The fact that innocent people will be executed is an undeniable part of the death penalty. We aren't living in a fantasy world, unless you want to use "BUT THE OP" as an excuse to get out of this one as well.

[Furious Grandmothers]

No, where did you get that from?

I'm saying that since you are fine with innocent people getting treated like shit in prison, you should be found guilty of a crime you are not guilty of and treated like shit and hopefully you'll come out with a better understanding of why what you said was bad.

Or you'll beg them to you and the other scum harder.

Sacrifices must be made to ensure the stability and security of society. That is all there is to it. Criminals must be dealt with harshly and without mercy to set an example to the rest. Surely you understand. If you treat a criminal leniently, it only emboldens him and other criminals like him to act even more boldly than before.

The part about innocent people being convicted is an unfortunate but albeit, necessary sacrifice. While criminal convictions are not always foolproof, innocents being convicted are still very, very rare. I find your morbid fascination with killing/torturing innocent people frankly, quite disturbing.

Tell that to us again once you have been convicted of a murder you have never committed.

Also, I find it impossible to believe that you have never beaten a red light, never jaywalked across to Peninsula Plaza, never littered in a train station, never had a morsel of food or drop of liquid flow down your throat while in a public transport. You impeccable citizen, you.

[JJ Place]

Psychology, my dear friend, provides your examples.

You can't bullshit your way out of this one.

Bundy committed no more crimes. His recidivism rate plateaued at 0.

You can't use a simplistic argument in a logic debate, either, and I've been rolling with that one for the past four posts. Would you like to answer my question, now, Grave_n_idle?

[Grave_n_idle]

"Although, to make sure you get all the bad guys, you might have to sacrifice one or two others."

Do explain!

If that was my only post on the subject, even just in this one thread, you might be making some sort of point.

It's far from my only post. The context I've consistently argued is that there is 'risk' that some innocents may be 'sacrificed', and that it's worth that risk.

Come on. Talk about how using this method on innocent people guarantees a 0% chance that their life can be undestroyed.

Nonsense doesn't deserve a response.

I really wish this wasn't actually the most accurate and substantive part of your post.

[Alyakia]

Looking at the OP, they asked "for or against". I don't see anyhting in there that said "make up a fantasy that gets rid of all the problems with the death penalty based on SHOULD and use that as your argument" but maybe I just have bad eyes.

[Grave_n_idle]

You can't bullshit your way out of this one.

Bundy committed no more crimes. His recidivism rate plateaued at 0.

You can't use a simplistic argument in a logic debate, either...

My argument is that execution is the only method that guarantees a complete lack of recidivism, ever.

Logical. Appropriate. Can't be realistically or logically argued against... which, I suspect, is why you keep trotting out illogical and unrealistic argument.

[Alyakia]

"Although, to make sure you get all the bad guys, you might have to sacrifice one or two others."

Do explain!

If that was my only post on the subject, even just in this one thread, you might be making some sort of point.

It's far from my only post. The context I've consistently argued is that there is 'risk' that some innocents may be 'sacrificed', and that it's worth that risk.

Come on. Talk about how using this method on innocent people guarantees a 0% chance that their life can be undestroyed.

Nonsense doesn't deserve a response.

I really wish this wasn't actually the most accurate and substantive part of your post.

How is it nonsense? Are you telling me innocent people can be revived? If you want to talk about how the death penalty stops recividism, why not talk about what that effect has on innocents who are executed?

[Alyakia]

You can't use a simplistic argument in a logic debate, either...

My argument is that execution is the only method that guarantees a complete lack of recidivism, ever.

Logical. Appropriate. Can't be realistically or logically argued against... which, I suspect, is why you keep trotting out illogical and unrealistic argument.

It guarantees a complete lack of anything. Including beind released after new evidence comes to light!

[Grave_n_idle]

If you want to talk about how the death penalty stops recividism, why not talk about what that effect has on innocents who are executed?

If you want to talk about how speeding makes car accident more likely to be fatal, why not talk about what the effect has on fatalities in slow moving car accidents?

Seriously, if this sub-Glenn Beck nonsense is all you've got left, I think you're done, here.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes. They shouldn't be. But they will. They always will.

Then your problem is not with the penalty, but with the trial system.

I forget... are you in favour of execution if ONLY the guilty were executed?

The fact that innocent people will be executed is an undeniable part of the death penalty.

Wrong on two counts.

[Grave_n_idle]

My argument is that execution is the only method that guarantees a complete lack of recidivism, ever.

Logical. Appropriate. Can't be realistically or logically argued against... which, I suspect, is why you keep trotting out illogical and unrealistic argument.

It guarantees a complete lack of anything. Including beind released after new evidence comes to light!

People who are guilty are not going to be released when they are proved innocent, because they are not innocent.

They're guilty.

You know, that might actually be why those two words are different.

[Alyakia]

If you want to talk about how the death penalty stops recividism, why not talk about what that effect has on innocents who are executed?

If you want to talk about how speeding makes car accident more likely to be fatal, why not talk about what the effect has on fatalities in slow moving car accidents?

Seriously, if this sub-Glenn Beck nonsense is all you've got left, I think you're done, here.

Seriously.

You are talking about the results of the death penalty.
The results that end in a 0% chance of the killed doing an action.
Why will you only talk about the effects that this result has in cases where it supports you?

sub-Glenn Beck nonsense? Why am I even fucking trying?

[Alyakia]

Yes. They shouldn't be. But they will. They always will.

Then your problem is not with the penalty, but with the trial system.

I forget... are you in favour of execution if ONLY the guilty were executed?

The fact that innocent people will be executed is an undeniable part of the death penalty.

Wrong on two counts.

And what decides who gets the fucking penalty?

People who are guilty are not going to be released when they are proved innocent, because they are not innocent.

They're guilty.

You know, that might actually be why those two words are different.

What the fuck does this even mean? Is someone who was executed still guilty after evidence arises that proves they didn't commit the crime?

[Grave_n_idle]

If you want to talk about how speeding makes car accident more likely to be fatal, why not talk about what the effect has on fatalities in slow moving car accidents?

Seriously, if this sub-Glenn Beck nonsense is all you've got left, I think you're done, here.

Seriously.

You are talking about the results of the death penalty.
The results that end in a 0% chance of the killed doing an action.
Why will you only talk about the effects that this result has in cases where it supports you?

I talk about the results in the case where it matters - where it stops the wort criminals from recidivism.

Is it more important that a murderer/rapist doesn't murder and rape anyone... or that a stamp collector collects some stamps?

You need to get some sense of proportion, here.

[Alyakia]

Seriously.

You are talking about the results of the death penalty.
The results that end in a 0% chance of the killed doing an action.
Why will you only talk about the effects that this result has in cases where it supports you?

I talk about the results in the case where it matters - where it stops the wort criminals from recidivism.

Is it more important that a murderer/rapist doesn't murder and rape anyone... or that a stamp collector collects some stamps?

You need to get some sense of proportion, here.

Where it matters? Are you saying cases of innocent people being killed don't matter?

[Alyakia]

You see killing innocent people is a lot like fucking stamp collection.

[Grave_n_idle]

And what decides who gets the fucking penalty?

Whoever normally decides the sentencing, one assumes.

What the fuck does this even mean? Is someone who was executed still guilty after evidence arises that proves they didn't commit the crime?

If they didn't commit the crime, they weren't guilty.

I'm not sure you're even paying attention, any more.

[Grave_n_idle]

You see killing innocent people is a lot like fucking stamp collection.

No, murder and rape are a lot unlike stamp collecting.

And that's kind of the point.

[Alyakia]

And what decides who gets the fucking penalty?

Whoever normally decides the sentencing, one assumes.

What the fuck does this even mean? Is someone who was executed still guilty after evidence arises that proves they didn't commit the crime?

If they didn't commit the crime, they weren't guilty.

I'm not sure you're even paying attention, any more.

Do you not fucking understand that the justice system declares people guilty of crimes they didn't commit all the goddamn time? Do you know what a post-humous exoneration is?

From that post, and your post about how "innocent people shouldn't be executed so i'm going to pretend they don't!" I'm not sure if you're posting based on some fantasy you've cooked up. Seems like it.

[Georgizm]

If they didn't commit the crime, they weren't guilty.

True. Innocent people can be and are found guilty though, and that fact alone means I will not support the death penalty for as long as we have an imperfect justice system.

Not to mention the fact that being sentenced to death doesn't actually bring the possibility of committing further crimes right down to nothing. Sure, being dead means you won't be doing anything to anyone but before that there's the whole being imprisoned on death row while the appeals go through part which can run on for years.

[Grave_n_idle]

Do you not fucking understand that the justice system declares people guilty of crimes they didn't commit all the goddamn time? Do you know what a post-humous exoneration is?

1) This would be a problem with the trial, not the sentence.

2) I've been pretty clear that I think we'd only employ this particular sentencing in especially certain cases of guilt.

3) My memory is failing me - were you in favour of a death penalty if we could be SURE of guilt?

[Furious Grandmothers]

Seriously.

You are talking about the results of the death penalty.
The results that end in a 0% chance of the killed doing an action.
Why will you only talk about the effects that this result has in cases where it supports you?

I talk about the results in the case where it matters - where it stops the wort criminals from recidivism.

Is it more important that a murderer/rapist doesn't murder and rape anyone... or that a stamp collector collects some stamps?

You need to get some sense of proportion, here.

I can't believe I'm seeing an abortion argument on this thread. "But the murderer could be the future Hitler/the innocent dude that was executed could be the future Einstein!"

[Grave_n_idle]

If they didn't commit the crime, they weren't guilty.

True. Innocent people can be and are found guilty though, and that fact alone means I will not support the death penalty for as long as we have an imperfect justice system.

And if we had a (more) perfect justice system?

Is anyone seriously questioning the guilt of Ted Bundy or Myra Hindley?

[Furious Grandmothers]

Do you not fucking understand that the justice system declares people guilty of crimes they didn't commit all the goddamn time? Do you know what a post-humous exoneration is?

1) This would be a problem with the trial, not the sentence.

2) I've been pretty clear that I think we'd only employ this particular sentencing in especially certain cases of guilt.

3) My memory is failing me - were you in favour of a death penalty if we could be SURE of guilt?

I don't think we can ever be sure of guilt. That's Alyakia's point, I believe.

[The ivain isles]

From a personal point of view, im Against. It's Illogical, firstly, because it basically stands on the premise that its wrong to kill people, therefore we should kill you. Secondly, it's immoral, because it is wrong to kill people, regardless of their actions, a life is a life, especially when it is usually society's fault that the crime was committed in the first place. Thirdly, there are better solutions to fixing the problem than sweeping the dirt under the carpet.
Although from an abstract point of view, I guess it's OK to kill people in the first place, considering it's okay to kill animals. just a thought