For those against the Death Penalty

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 03:47 PM)Benton Wrote: Customer: "I'll take a #2, no pickles."
Cashier: "#2, no pickles."
Cook: [hears #2, pickles; makes sandwich with pickles; serves sandwich]
Customer: [eats pickle-laden sandwich, dies]
Grieving customer: "You bastard, you killed Kenny. You need to have a better system in place.
Observer whose order didn't get messed up: "Quit complaining, no system is perfect."

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.

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We have a judicial system, it is not perfect, nothing is or ever will be. By taking the death penalty of the table you take away a deterrent, a chance for closure for many families, and a just punishment in many cases.

The death penalty is no more of a deterrent than life without parole.

Death penalty is not the only way to create "closure" for the families of the victims.

Death penalty is not the only "just punishment" for a crime.


None of these "justifications" are worth the life of an innocent person.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 03:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: Are they flaws which can be corrected at a later time?

Because the death penalty is not one of those. 

It's too late for many in some cases.

But you don't want to go there.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 03:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The death penalty is no more of a deterrent than life without parole.

Death penalty is not the only way to create "closure" for the families of the victims.

Death penalty is not the only "just punishment" for a crime.


None of these "justifications" are worth the life of an innocent person.

Well then why are you bytching about it then, if there's no difference.

There's also no "justification" of locking an innocent person up for life either (aka taking their life).

[*bfine32*]

How do those against the Death Penalty feel if the convicted request death?

[fredtoast]

(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.

I don't know if there are in cases like that.

(07-03-2018, 03:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're only in favor of locking an innocent person up for life if the mistake is never found?

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

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 04:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How do those against the Death Penalty feel if the convicted request death?

If they are trying to become a martyr then I would oppose it.  Maybe let them kill themselves, but don't let the state do it.

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 04:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well then why are you bytching about it then, if there's no difference.

Because my issue has nothing to do with "deterrence".

(07-03-2018, 04:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's also no "justification" of locking an innocent person up for life either (aka taking their life).

I don't th9ink you even understand what we are debating.

We are not debating if we should have a criminal justice system that hands out punishment.  No one is against that.  Instead we are just discussing the difference between "death penalty" and "life without parole".  The justification for "life without parole" is that mistakes can be corrected.  With the death penalty they can not.

Why kill innocent people when we don't have to?

[GMDino]

(07-03-2018, 03:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's too late for many in some cases.

But you don't want to go there.

Sounds like a bad deal...and sounds like the death penalty.

[*michaelsean*]

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.

[Belsnickel]

(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.

There has been substantial research done on the topic, though there are discussions about just how reliable the evidence is. Now, Those links may not open the reports for you because I am on a university server and therefore research is at my fingertips, but here is a website that talks a little about it. It's not the best site, and they have an obvious objective in their presentation of the information, but it is difficult because I can't share a lot of the stuff I have read.

Now if only I could share stuff from our library database. Then I would be overwhelming you with academic research.

[GMDino]

(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.

In this article they tracked crimes during times when the death penalty wasn't used as one way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/30/theres-still-no-evidence-that-executions-deter-criminals/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dcba9df5c709

[fredtoast]

(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.

Studies showed that when the death penalty ban was overturned by the SC in 1972 the Sates that re-instated the death penalty did not see any greater reduction in murders than the states where it remained banned.

Murder rates have been consistently lower in states with no death penalty than in states with a death penalty.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 04:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because my issue has nothing to do with "deterrence".


I don't th9ink you even understand what we are debating.

We are not debating if we should have a criminal justice system that hands out punishment.  No one is against that.  Instead we are just discussing the difference between "death penalty" and "life without parole".  The justification for "life without parole" is that mistakes can be corrected.  With the death penalty they can not.

Why kill innocent people when we don't have to?

Is it your assertion that no one wrongly sentenced to death has been found not to be guilty before the sentence or does it happen very late in the life sentence?

As someone mentioned earlier the chances of finding an error may be increased with the extreme vetting done during capital punishment sentencing. 

And I don't think you realize what you are arguing, we are not debating if innocent people should be killed. No one is for that.

[*bfine32*]

(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?

Your being "OK" with an innocent person locked up for life is noted. Personally I'm not OK with an innocent person being locked up for life regardless if the error is every brought to light.

 

[GMDino]

(07-03-2018, 05:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your being "OK" with an innocent person locked up for life is noted. Personally I'm not OK with an innocent person being locked up for life regardless if the error is every brought to light.

 

So low.

You fully know that you are purposefully twisting what Fred said and should apologize.

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 05:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your being "OK" with an innocent person locked up for life is noted. Personally I'm not OK with an innocent person being locked up for life regardless if the error is every brought to light.

No one is in favor of locking up an innocent person, but it does not make any sense to kill them to avoid locking them up.

What exactly is your point?

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 05:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I don't think you realize what you are arguing, we are not debating if innocent people should be killed. No one is for that.

Then why have a system in place that kills innocent people instead of giving them a chance at correcting the mistake?

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one is in favor of locking up an innocent person, but it does not make any sense to kill them to avoid locking them up.

What exactly is your point?

My point is no one is in favor of killing an innocent person, no matter how many times you say.

But I've been told I owe you an apology. so......Sorry.

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 05:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For real? Fred has gone through this whole thread asserting others are OK with innocent people getting killed and once the tables get turned because of his words; he's owed an apology?

GTFO

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.