For those against the Death Penalty

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 05:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My point is no one is in favor of killing an innocent person, no matter how many times you say.

We all know innocent people get convicted.

I am in favor of giving them life in prison so that they have a chance to correct the mistake.

You are in favor of killing them.

If you support the death penalty then you support killing innocent people instead of giving them a chance to correct the mistake.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 05:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then why have a system in place that kills innocent people instead of giving them a chance at correcting the mistake?

Because if folks say one innocent person killed is too many and that we should stop the practice, then we should not allow illegal immigrants to remain in this country. Because they've killed at least one innocent person.

People pick a subject they want to take the morale high ground on and roll with it. I've already said it should be used in cases of zero doubt. Confession and witnessed by non-interested personnel. I'm sure you will be in favor of allowing illegal immigrants in the country as long as they are carefully vetted. Or should we throw the baby out with the bath water. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 05:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We all know innocent people get convicted.

I am in favor of giving them life in prison so that they have a chance to correct the mistake.

You are in favor of killing them.

If you support the death penalty then you support killing innocent people instead of giving them a chance to correct the mistake.

Let me ask you a simple question:

I've been told it costs more to the taxpayer to house someone on death roll, then it doesn't life in prison. Is any of that cost because of additional legal measure to verify innocence? 

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because if folks say one innocent person killed is too many and that we should stop the practice, then we should not allow illegal immigrants to remain in this country. Because they've killed at least one innocent person.

Illegal immigrants have also saved people lives.  So banning illegal immigrants would cost innocent lives.

Illegal immigrants have also been killed in place of legal citizens.  So if they had not been here other citiens would have been killed instead.  Again banning illegal immigrants would cost other innocent lives.

as long as the murder rate of the illegal immigrants is the same as the legal citizens then banning illegal immigration is a zero net sum gain in murders.  

If there was any evidence that banning illegal immigrants would lower the murder rate then I would consider banning it.  But there is no evidence like that out there.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 03:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I'm only for the death penalty in cases where mistake is miniscule and/or non-existent.

So you're only in favor of locking an innocent person up for life if the mistake is never found?

(07-03-2018, 04:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know if there are in cases like that.



Of course.  Who would be in favor of keeping them locked up if a mistake is found?

(07-03-2018, 05:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: All of the discussion and questions you asked me had to do with a mistake being corrected.  So all along I have said that an innocent person should not be locked up once the mistake is discovered.  I have never said anything about being okay with an innocent person being locked up.

Are you sure? 

But to be honest I do not believe you are any more in favor of an innocent person spending their life in Prison than I am OK with a innocent person getting killed. But it doesn't change what was said.

Why the hell do my posts get deleted?

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 05:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me ask you a simple question:

I've been told it costs more to the taxpayer to house someone on death roll, then it doesn't life in prison. Is any of that cost because of additional legal measure to verify innocence? 

It costs A LOT more to try and convict a person in a death penalty case.  The burden on the state is much greater.  The sentencing stage is usually more expensive and time consuming than the determination of guilt.

I don't thin it really cost any more to house one once they are in prison.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 05:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Illegal immigrants have also saved people lives.  So banning illegal immigrants would cost innocent lives.

Illegal immigrants have also been killed in place of legal citizens.  So if they had not been here other citiens would have been killed instead.  Again banning illegal immigrants would cost other innocent lives.

as long as the murder rate of the illegal immigrants is the same as the legal citizens then banning illegal immigration is a zero net sum gain in murders.  

If there was any evidence that banning illegal immigrants would lower the murder rate then I would consider banning it.  But there is no evidence like that out there.

But one innocent live is too much..... am I right
 
By the way. The highlighted literally made me laugh out loud in its "logic".

Illegal immigrants killing folks would be reduced to zero if we had zero tolerance. You really need a study for that? 

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 05:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It costs A LOT more to try and convict a person in a death penalty case.  The burden on the state is much greater.  The sentencing stage is usually more expensive and time consuming than the determination of guilt.

I don't thin it really cost any more to house one once they are in prison.

Ok, I've heard it costs more because of the amount of appeals and what not. 

But you got to be in favor of the burden of proof being much greater don't you? 

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 05:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you sure? 

But to be honest I do not believe you are any more in favor of an innocent person spending their life in Prison than I am OK with a innocent person getting killed. But it doesn't change what was said.

Why the hell do my posts get deleted?

This is getting ridiculous.  We never discussed any other option than locking up a person who was convicted by mistake.  What do you suggest we do in that situation?  What is my other choice besides locking them up?

When it comes to the death penalty we have 2 clear options.  One is to kill them all.  The other is to let them live and see if any mostakes can be corrected.



Basically your entire argument boils down to cases with "zero doubt", and I say those cases don't really exist.  The case you started this thread about certainly does not fit that mold.  We don't know for sure if the guy did it, and we also don't know if he is mentally ill.  So why do you think there is "zero doubt" in the case you cited as justifying the death penalty?

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 05:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ok, I've heard it costs more because of the amount of appeals and what not. 

But you got to be in favor of the burden of proof being much greater don't you? 

I don't know about number of appeals.  I guess there are probably more allowed for death penalty cases.

The biggest added cost for a death penalty case is the "sentencing phase".  Most people don't realize that once a person is convicted of a crime there is a totally separate "hearing" where the court determines the punishment for the crime.  Some times these sentencing hearings can be much more complicated that the trial that determined guilt, especially in a death penalty case.  In fact in some cases a person will plead guilty and have no trial, but have an extensive hearing on sentencing involving psychiatrists, friends, family members, etc. 

By far the biggest added cost to a death penalty case is the sentencing phase.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 05:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is getting ridiculous.  We never discussed any other option than locking up a person who was convicted by mistake.  What do you suggest we do in that situation?  What is my other choice besides locking them up?

When it comes to the death penalty we have 2 clear options.  One is to kill them all.  The other is to let them live and see if any mostakes can be corrected.



Basically your entire argument boils down to cases with "zero doubt", and I say those cases don't really exist.  The case you started this thread about certainly does not fit that mold.  We don't know for sure if the guy did it, and we also don't know if he is mentally ill.  So why do you think there is "zero doubt" in the case you cited as justifying the death penalty?

It's far beyond "getting ridiculous". 

What are your doubts on the Dylan Roof case? 

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 05:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Illegal immigrants killing folks would be reduced to zero if we had zero tolerance. You really need a study for that? 

Illegal immigrants being the victims of murders that otherwise would have been legal citizens will also drop to zero.

As long as the murder rate does not change then banning illegal immigrants would be a zero net sum gain.  No lives will be saved.  You eliminate killers, but you also eliminate victims.

Plus people who have had their lives saved by illegal immigrants will die.

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 05:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What are your doubts on the Dylan Roof case? 

His mental health.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 06:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: His mental health.

So you think he may not of known what he was doing? Do you think he should get life in prison or should we continue to explore his mental health?

To be honest mental health could be used for any murder case. 


BTW, there have most likely been innocent folks in prison killed by murders that got life in prison instead of the death sentence. Do you now see how absurd you "logic" is?

WTS, I spent more time on this than I should. The WC game is over and I have to go pick out a new Angel Fish. 

[BmorePat87]

9 or so attempted murder charges? I'm not a DA, but I imagine a very lengthy prison sentence is in store for this person.

[Benton]

(07-03-2018, 03:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose there's a point in comparing our judicial system to a fast food restaurant; it's just lost on me. At least we can lock the cashier up for life.

“Nothing is perfect” is the kind of thing you say when the restaurant messes up your order or the painter gets a line on the baseboards. Applying the same line of thinking to someone’s life is kind of absurd.

Nay, not even kind of. It’s just crazy.

[Benton]

(07-03-2018, 04:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: How do we know the death penalty isn't a deterrent? How do you determine how many people haven't murdered because they didn't want the death penalty? It seems to be an accepted conclusion, but I've never understood how they've determined this.

The bulk of studies I’ve read lean towards socio-economic status being the best indicator/deterent to crime. You want a low crime society, make sure everyone has a living wage. You want The Purge 365, then mke it more difficult to pay the rent.

[jj22]

(07-03-2018, 09:50 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yet those on death row fight to the last minute to stay alive.  During the sentencing phase, with I'm sure a few exceptions, they do everything they can to get your punishment rather than a death sentence.

Probably because they aren't rotting like we like to think they are. They demand good beds, nutritious food, humane living arrangements, and could even get a cake delivered from the local conservative bakery. Far better treatment than they afforded their victims. So you have a point.

I don't know about the death penalty but I try to stay out of the argument. It's easy to take a stance, but you're never really tested until God forbid something happen to someone close to you. So it's hard to judge the pro death penalty side.

[hollodero]

(07-03-2018, 09:16 PM)jj22 Wrote: I don't know about the death penalty but I try to stay out of the argument. It's easy to take a stance, but you're never really tested until God forbid something happen to someone close to you. So it's hard to judge the pro death penalty side.

I don't judge them at all. I do think that those most affected by an awful deed should not be the ones defining the policy regarding punishment.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-03-2018, 09:16 PM)jj22 Wrote: Probably because they aren't rotting like we like to think they are. They demand good beds, nutritious food, humane living arrangements, and could even get a cake delivered from the local conservative bakery. Far better treatment than they afforded their victims. So you have a point.

I don't know about the death penalty but I try to stay out of the argument. It's easy to take a stance, but you're never really tested until God forbid something happen to someone close to you. So it's hard to judge the pro death penalty side.

Well sure. We talk about it sort of away from it. How you react when it is close to you is a different matter.

The maybe weird thing is I am not for harsh conditions in prison. I believe loss of freedom is the punishment.