NationStates Jolt Archive

DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- A man imprisoned since 1981 for sexual assault was freed after a judge recommended overturning his conviction.

Charles Chatman, 47, was released on his recognizance after serving nearly 27 years of a 99-year sentence. He was freed on the basis of new DNA testing that lawyers say proves his innocence and adds to Dallas County's nationally unmatched number of wrongfully convicted inmates.

Chatman became the 15th inmate from Dallas County since 2001 to be freed by DNA testing. That is more than any other county nationwide, said Natalie Roetzel of the Innocence Project of Texas, an organization of volunteers who investigate claims of wrongful conviction.

Texas leads the country in prisoners freed by DNA testing. Including Chatman, the state will have released at least 30 wrongfully convicted inmates since 2001, according to the Innocence Project.

Before his Thursday morning hearing, Chatman said throughout his 26 years in prison that he never raped the woman who lived five houses down from him.



Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/03/dna.exoneration.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview).

Proving, yet again, that the death penalty is a damned stupid idea. What are your thoughts?

Jesus. How do you say sorry for taking 23 years of a person's life?

Jesus. How do you say sorry for taking 23 years of a person's life?

in my opinion? With lots, and lots of money.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/03/dna.exoneration.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview).

Proving, yet again, that the death penalty is a damned stupid idea. What are your thoughts?

Just force them (the accused) to take a DNA test.

in my opinion? With lots, and lots of money.

Yeah - his criminal record has stuffed his ability to get any kind of job and being 23 years in gaol, it's like he's going out to a totally different world to the one he left when he went in. And 23 years of no chance to earn any income as well.

Just force them (the accused) to take a DNA test.

For the most part, they can do that already. Moreover, it would be a wonderful idea, if every crime left DNA. Now, please, explain to me what DNA of the criminal is left when he shoots someone in the head?

Jesus. How do you say sorry for taking 23 years of a person's life?

With a shitload of money?

Just force them (the accused) to take a DNA test.

DNA tests may be conclusive, but juries, judges and the rest of justice system are fallible.

I just finished the John Grisham book, and it's really not surprising to me that such events happen. (It's non-fiction. An innocent man was sent to prison on basically no evidence and the evidence there was, was provably doctored. They had the actual guilty man the whole time but for whatever reason never even took hair and semen samples from him.)

As long as the more money you spend the more likely you are to get justice, the death penalty is too permanent a "solution" for my blood.

Now, I'd get behind the death penalty after multiple convictions.

Here's a thing I've been trying to make on the death penalty. Inform me if my statistics are innacurate, or improvable. I think I've made a lot of cost concessions to death penalty advocates, but tell me what you guys think.

• The average family of five can live luxuriously off $60,000 a year.
• So lets say one person living luxuriously needs $12,000 a year.
• Since prisoners don’t necessarily live luxuriously, but do need security, lets say they need about $10,000 a year.
• 3,254 offenders were under sentence of death in the United States as of December 31, 2005.
• The average age of one executed is 39.
• The average amount of time spent before an execution is 10.26 years.
• So we’ll start with the person at 29, they spend 10 years in jail.
• This costs us $100,000.
• There are also many appeals allowed, which adds to the cost.
• In most cases, the death penalty is not used, and the individual is incarcerated for life. Only 12% of the original accused are executed.
• We will end up paying $3,254,000 this year for supporting people on death row.
• This will continue for ten years, making it around $32,540,000.
• All of their executions (combined) will cost us around $260,000 (though actually a little more).
• We will have to pay for all of their appeals (can’t really be calculated), but lets say this is $500,000 each.
• This adds up to $1,627,000,000 for all of them.
• This all adds up to $1,659,800,000.
• Divided up by say 100 million taxpayers gives us about $16.6.
• Do consider that I’m giving a lot of leniency here, costs of trials often vary, but North Carolina found it paid 2.16 million per execution, which is more than what I’m calculating.

Life in Prison
• Lets say all these death row people live to be 80, that’s 51 years.
• Also, since their appeals aren’t as frequent/costly, lets say we spend $200,000 on each. (Perhaps less or more in reality, I’m just taking a stab at it)
• In the end that means $2,310,340,000.
• Lets subtract that from the death penalty estimate.
• We end up with $650,540,000.

Finally
• Divide that by 100 million for the taxpayers, and you have about $6.5 per year.
• Around 1 out of every 10 people on death row is proven innocent, and there are doubts about many.
• So in other words, when one supports the death penalty, one is saying that they care more for $6.5 than protecting innocent lives.

For the most part, they can do that already. Moreover, it would be a wonderful idea, if every crime left DNA. Now, please, explain to me what DNA of the criminal is left when he shoots someone in the head?

None that I can think of at the moment, but I never said it would be a perfect system. However it still seems like it would be a good idea.

Jesus. How do you say sorry for taking 23 years of a person's life?

A $23 million check

None that I can think of at the moment, but I never said it would be a perfect system. But it still seems like it would be a good idea.

My understanding that many, if not most states already fingerprint and take DNA samples from all of their inmates.

My understanding that many, if not most states already fingerprint and take DNA samples from all of their inmates.

That's good.

Jesus. How do you say sorry for taking 23 years of a person's life?

in my opinion? With lots, and lots of money.

That, and finding and imprisoning the real rapist. *nod*

A $23 million check

It should depend on whether or not the conviction was made based on compelling evidence, a legitimate conviction, or whether other people helped to wrongly convict him.

I can say that I was arrested at one point for credit card fraud. Looking at the evidence they had against me, it would have been nearly impossible to convince anyone that I was not guilty. If the real perpetrator had not been caught, I would have been toast. Sometimes the state is doing the best that it can, and there really is not a reasonable doubt that the wrong guy did the crime.

How do you say sorry for taking 23 years of a person's life?
Jesus.

I fixed your post to answer your question as it would be answered in Texas. :p

I fixed your post to answer your question as it would be answered in Texas. :p

:p

Link for the sentence? I can't find one.
At any rate, there's no excuse for taking 23 years of his life and no proper retribution. At least he won't die in prison, though it's hard to get a start again on the outside.

Link for the sentence? I can't find one.
At any rate, there's no excuse for taking 23 years of his life and no proper retribution. At least he won't die in prison, though it's hard to get a start again on the outside.

as the article states, it was a 99 year sentence.

"I was convicted because a black man committed a crime against a white woman," Chatman said. "And I was available."

Very true.

as the article states, it was a 99 year sentence.

Ah, can't read. I'm tired (it's late here). Thanks and sorry for wasting your time.

In Connecticut recently a wrongfully imprisoned (now free obviously) man was awarded roughly $1m per year of imprisonment.

Jesus. How do you say sorry for taking 23 years of a person's life?

You criticize liberals for trying to get convicted rapists and murderers out of prison.

In England they tried to do it by charging the wrongfully convicted for room and board because if you didn't commit a crime you weren't entitled to free food and shelter.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/03/dna.exoneration.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview).

Proving, yet again, that the death penalty is a damned stupid idea. What are your thoughts?

Where does it say he was on death row?

Anyway, DNA should be considered wherever possible, no question.

In England they tried to do it by charging the wrongfully convicted for room and board because if you didn't commit a crime you weren't entitled to free food and shelter.

This is a gross, and entirely inaccurate interpretation of the events to which you refer.

Where does it say he was on death row?


I do believe you missed my point.

You criticize liberals for trying to get convicted rapists and murderers out of prison.

In England they tried to do it by charging the wrongfully convicted for room and board because if you didn't commit a crime you weren't entitled to free food and shelter.

Not making sense.

I do believe you missed my point.

Eh. I don't see how the sentence figures into it, that's all. So long as we're using all possible resources to determine guilt, the method of punishment should be left to the people. You could probably run DNA tests on old cases and find people who've died in prison after wrongful conviction, but you wouldn't strike down life sentences on that basis. The point is, that as long as we're using all the tools we have in the present to determine guilt, we don't need to flinch when passing judgment.

Eh. I don't see how the sentence figures into it, that's all. So long as we're using all possible resources to determine guilt, the method of punishment should be left to the people. You could probably run DNA tests on old cases and find people who've died in prison after wrongful conviction, but you wouldn't strike down life sentences on that basis. The point is, that as long as we're using all the tools we have in the present to determine guilt, we don't need to flinch when passing judgment.

The problem is we're fallible and new technology and new information is regularly releasing innocent men. You can't really do that once they're dead. The US manages to maintain that they've never executed an innocent man because conveniently they stop addressing guilt and innocence once they kill them.

For the most part, they can do that already. Moreover, it would be a wonderful idea, if every crime left DNA. Now, please, explain to me what DNA of the criminal is left when he shoots someone in the head?
Sometimes, I wake up wishing that I was living in a world where everything was covered in semen. Yes, I know I butchered the quote, but I don't want to have to watch most of Superbad just to get it right.

Sometimes, I wake up wishing that I was living in a world where everything was covered in semen.
bukkake is obviously for you, then.

Sometimes, I wake up wishing that I was living in a world where everything was covered in semen. Yes, I know I butchered the quote, but I don't want to have to watch most of Superbad just to get it right.

I swear to goodness, that I just heard that line. I'm watching Superbad.

• The average family of five can live luxuriously off $60,000 a year.
• So lets say one person living luxuriously needs $12,000 a year.


What planet do you live on?

What planet do you live on?

Wal-Mart is your friend, man. I could live pretty high on the hog (in California, no less!) for 12k/year. :)

Dallas County doesn't exactly have a sound track record on criminal justice. Aside from this, there was also an incident where several Hispanics were imprisoned for cocaine possession. Problem, was that the "evidence" turned out to have been mostly powdered gypsum, planted by an informant with a criminal record of his own and paid by the undercover officers for the "information" that made the arrests possible.

That, and finding and imprisoning the real rapist. *nod*

Please excuse me, but after 26 years behind bars, I'd either not be giving a fuck about the rapist or be hoping he had the time of his life, preferably torturing and murdering too, from 1981 to 2007. The rapist didn't imprison the man here, the system did.

Please excuse me, but after 26 years behind bars, I'd either not be giving a fuck about the rapist or be hoping he had the time of his life, preferably torturing and murdering too, from 1981 to 2007. The rapist didn't imprison the man here, the system did.

I'm sure the victim is happy to know that the real rapist has been unaccounted for all these years too.

Please excuse me, but after 26 years behind bars, I'd either not be giving a fuck about the rapist or be hoping he had the time of his life, preferably torturing and murdering too, from 1981 to 2007. The rapist didn't imprison the man here, the system did.

Um, there's no evidence that has been presented that the state did anything wrong here. He was identified by the victim. There is no human system in the world that's going to get it right all the time.

Now, if it's shown that there was more than just a mistake here, then I say everyone involved in wrongly convicting this man should professionally and financially destroyed.

What kind of horrible person would hope that someone was out raping and murdering for 26 years since they got shafted? Seriously, how does this make sense to you?

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/03/dna.exoneration.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview).

Proving, yet again, that the death penalty is a damned stupid idea. What are your thoughts?
I would think that it "proves" many other assertions as well. Like how unreliable eyewitnesses can be. Or how a good lawyer can out try a bad one.

Maybe the real problem in our legal system isn't the death penalty, but the way prosecutors try cases?

Myrm, what does your sig mean?

For the most part, they can do that already. Moreover, it would be a wonderful idea, if every crime left DNA. Now, please, explain to me what DNA of the criminal is left when he shoots someone in the head?

Do you not watch CSI!:D

in my opinion? With lots, and lots of money.

Couldn't agree more.

Myrm, what does your sig mean?

Left side or right side?

Left side or right side?

Left. Molon lab'e

Left. Molon lab'e
It's King Leonidas' version of "Nuts". At Thermopylae, Xerxes asked for the Spartans weapons and Leonidas replied "Come and get them".

A number of us feel that way about the BATF, although I'm not quite sure I want to fight to the death with them.

The Macbeth is much more appropriate to the election season, though.

It's King Leonidas' version of "Nuts". At Thermopylae, Xerxes asked for the Spartans weapons and Leonidas replied "Come and get them".

A number of us feel that way about the BATF, although I'm not quite sure I want to fight to the death with them.

The Macbeth is much more appropriate to the election season, though.

Sooo you are saying that this Leonidas fella was a Brit then? 'come on then, coooome on!'

Sooo you are saying that this Leonidas fella was a Brit then? 'come on then, coooome on!'
*laughs...

Okay, the quotes were in the wrong place.

I'm sure he was a big time soccer -- oops, metric football, fan, though.

Um, there's no evidence that has been presented that the state did anything wrong here. He was identified by the victim. There is no human system in the world that's going to get it right all the time.

Now, if it's shown that there was more than just a mistake here, then I say everyone involved in wrongly convicting this man should professionally and financially destroyed.

What kind of horrible person would hope that someone was out raping and murdering for 26 years since they got shafted? Seriously, how does this make sense to you?

A person made horrible by a 26-years-long unjust imprisonment? I'm not saying it'd be REASONABLE, but do you REALLY see someone REMAINING a reasonable person after this? Worse, imprisoned as a RAPIST? Do you know what they do to rapists in prison?

As for "the state did nothing wrong", if it hadn't, this man would not have been jailed. Reparations MUST be made.

A person made horrible by a 26-years-long unjust imprisonment? I'm not saying it'd be REASONABLE, but do you REALLY see someone REMAINING a reasonable person after this? Worse, imprisoned as a RAPIST? Do you know what they do to rapists in prison?

As for "the state did nothing wrong", if it hadn't, this man would not have been jailed. Reparations MUST be made.

And of course as he stated repeatedly throughout his incarceration that he was innocent I bet that did not endear him to the prison population* either...

*guards and prisoners

And of course as he stated repeatedly throughout his incarceration that he was innocent I bet that did not endear him to the prison population* either...

*guards and prisoners

Guards: "Everyone's innocent in prison. Hey, Bubba, here's some fresh meat."

Bubba: "He's a rapist alright. Nice! Fresh meat!"

Guards: "Everyone's innocent in prison. Hey, Bubba, here's some fresh meat."

Bubba: "He's a rapist alright. Nice! Fresh meat!"

pretty much

awful situation...

Jesus. How do you say sorry for taking 23 years of a person's life?

You throw the fucker back in prison where he belongs, because the word of 12 jurors and a judge is good enough to convict someone. This person doesn't deserve a second chance. He deserves the chair.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, is this not a contest thread to determine who can give the most trollish response?

Sorry, then. Disregard my above statement.

I'm thinking that, say, $100,000 per year of imprisonment, or bump it up to $10,000 a month, or if we want to get really snippy, make it around $400 a day, or hell, why not $20 an hour, or with the short prison sentences handed down to Paris and Nicole, 35 cents a minute should be sufficient. Or hell, just round it to half a cent per second and call it square. I think that's fair - calculate, from the moment of the arrest until the moment of the release, how many seconds it took (OK, OK, maybe round it to the nearest minute; I don't care,) and give the person one penny for every 2 seconds they got taken out of their lives. With 86,400 seconds in a day, that mean that a wrongfully imprisoned person makes $432 a day, and over 4 years, given the presence of a leap year, someone will be owed $631,152. Figuring up that they took 26 years and a chunk of a 27th, I figure they got about 26.4 years out of this man's life. If my guess holds up, he should be sitting on $4,165,603.20. Just so long as he doesn't have to pay taxes on it, he could essentially retire for life.

Naturally, these numbers will have to be adjusted for inflation, but it could be done. Clean up the pork barrels and drop the death penalty, and it might actually become affordable.

Proving, yet again, that the death penalty is a damned stupid idea. What are your thoughts?

I can't have thoughts right now, because this song is stuck in my head:
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/hurricane.html

Ooh - there's a plan for how society can make it up to him. We'll get Bob Dylan to write a song about him. That'll cheer him up, and no mistake.

This is a gross, and entirely inaccurate interpretation of the events to which you refer.

I said tried.

Did it actually become standard policy?

Not making sense.

Rather the point.

The problem is we're fallible and new technology and new information is regularly releasing innocent men. You can't really do that once they're dead. The US manages to maintain that they've never executed an innocent man because conveniently they stop addressing guilt and innocence once they kill them.

There is the Jesse Tafero case in Florida, where the investigation continued after his botched execution (his head burst into flames and he died after shrieking for several minutes; the scene in the movie "The Green Mile" is based on his case) because his girlfriend was also in prison for taking part in the murder, which as it turns out neither of them had anything to do with.

Stuff like this is why I can't support the death penalty.

In theory I have no problem with the idea of executing people who are guilty of certain crimes. However, our justice system is simply not reliable enough for me to be okay with this right now.

Stuff like this is why I can't support the death penalty.

In theory I have no problem with the idea of executing people who are guilty of certain crimes. However, our justice system is simply not reliable enough for me to be okay with this right now.

I'm not certain it ever could be reliable enough. There's just too many places that it can go awry and the more prequisites you put on applying the death penalty to a case, it becomes less and less likely to be used anyway. Seems like a catch-22.

We all know that nothing can be said or done to give the guy back the 23 years, thank god he wasn't executed, though in some ways it might have been a blessing for him.
Money can only do so much, I think each state should start a committee and those who have been conivicted like he was serve on that committee and they should have the power to stay or uphold executions that could override the governor's power. That is the real way you make amends to people wronged, burden the society that was responible for it.

I'm not certain it ever could be reliable enough. There's just too many places that it can go awry and the more prequisites you put on applying the death penalty to a case, it becomes less and less likely to be used anyway. Seems like a catch-22.Quite true.

A person made horrible by a 26-years-long unjust imprisonment? I'm not saying it'd be REASONABLE, but do you REALLY see someone REMAINING a reasonable person after this? Worse, imprisoned as a RAPIST? Do you know what they do to rapists in prison?

As for "the state did nothing wrong", if it hadn't, this man would not have been jailed. Reparations MUST be made.

False. The preponderence of evidence points to someone having committed a crime the state is OBLIGATED to press charges for that crime. If the evidence is enough for him to appear guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then he goes to jail.

The man you be compensated for the time lost, but that doesn't make the state guilty of wrongdoing. They law obligates them. The DA isn't magical.

Meanwhile, actually, rapists aren't treated that badly. You're thinking of molesters. There are a lot of rapists in prison, and many of them continue to be rapists. I'm sure prison was horrible, but if this man has become so vindictive that he hopes people are running around murdering and raping, I hope he heads for another institution altogether. That you would suggest such a thing is quite telling. I think we're more talking about your fantasies than his.

There is the Jesse Tafero case in Florida, where the investigation continued after his botched execution (his head burst into flames and he died after shrieking for several minutes; the scene in the movie "The Green Mile" is based on his case) because his girlfriend was also in prison for taking part in the murder, which as it turns out neither of them had anything to do with.

You have a link or proof of this?

Stuff like this is why I can't support the death penalty.
I can't agree. The system is obviously flawed, but that is a half-assed reason to not support something by itself. The system is too incompetent, and slow, for the death penalty as it stands, but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed.

If you want info on the Tafero case, I don't have a link handy but it's rather well-known (I first heard of it in a review of a "play" consisting of readings from the accounts of exonerated people who had gotten out of jail, including Tafero's girlfriend).
You are assuming throughout that the law enforcement personnel are acting in good faith, which is not always a good assumption, particularly in Texas:

DALLAS - Two Texas police officers frequently made homeless people and prostitutes sign blank tickets so they could later fill them out with whatever offences they chose, according to a Dallas Police Department investigation.

Police Chief David Kunkle said investigators concluded the two officers used the blank tickets as a law-enforcement tool against habitual offenders. If those offenders always had unpaid tickets, then officers could obtain arrest warrants and take people into custody at any time, Kunkle said.
Read More:
http://reddingloavesandfishes.com/forum/index.php?topic=649.0

I can't agree. The system is obviously flawed, but that is a half-assed reason to not support something by itself. The system is too incompetent, and slow, for the death penalty as it stands, but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed.

Human error will be a part of any system. It can be minimized, but never fully removed.

When the thing you're talking about supporting is killing people, the inherent flaws are absolutely a reason not to support it.

You have a link or proof of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Tafero

Doesn't quite fit with Tmutarakhan's telling of things. Tafero's execution was botched, and his girlfriend was released. Doesn't appear that it was discovered that they were both innocent though.

False. The preponderence of evidence points to someone having committed a crime the state is OBLIGATED to press charges for that crime. If the evidence is enough for him to appear guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then he goes to jail.

The man you be compensated for the time lost, but that doesn't make the state guilty of wrongdoing. They law obligates them. The DA isn't magical.

Meanwhile, actually, rapists aren't treated that badly. You're thinking of molesters. There are a lot of rapists in prison, and many of them continue to be rapists. I'm sure prison was horrible, but if this man has become so vindictive that he hopes people are running around murdering and raping, I hope he heads for another institution altogether. That you would suggest such a thing is quite telling. I think we're more talking about your fantasies than his.

Do you really think being unjustly imprisoned for this long will even leave the person SANE?

Do you really think being unjustly imprisoned for this long will even leave the person SANE?

I don't assume anything. I think it would surely test your sanity. But people have come through much worse sane.

False. The preponderence of evidence points to someone having committed a crime the state is OBLIGATED to press charges for that crime. If the evidence is enough for him to appear guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then he goes to jail.

The man you be compensated for the time lost, but that doesn't make the state guilty of wrongdoing. They law obligates them. The DA isn't magical.

Meanwhile, actually, rapists aren't treated that badly. You're thinking of molesters. There are a lot of rapists in prison, and many of them continue to be rapists. I'm sure prison was horrible, but if this man has become so vindictive that he hopes people are running around murdering and raping, I hope he heads for another institution altogether. That you would suggest such a thing is quite telling. I think we're more talking about your fantasies than his.

You miss one important aspect here. The guy also insisted on his innocence. Not something that goes down well.

Do you really think being unjustly imprisoned for this long will even leave the person SANE?

No. Also his health is most likely going to be badly affected as well.

I don't assume anything. I think it would surely test your sanity. But people have come through much worse sane.

Well here you are assuming that people who have 'come through much worse' actually are sane.

What do you consider to be worse than being locked up in a US prison for 27 years?

What do you consider to be worse than being locked up in a US prison for 27 years?

Being locked up in a US prison for 28 years! :D

Heck, it still is happening to three men in Memphis convicted of 'Satan worship' when all they did is wear black metallica t-shirts a lot.

I watched both documentaries and was literally sick to my stomach on how they were railroaded.

But don't take my word for it. (http://www.wm3.org/splash.php)

Long convictions are retarded because there's *always* a chance the person is innocent.

Consider here:
A suspected and "proven" sexual assault lands a person in prison for 99 years of which he serves 27 years unjustly.

Why not a more humane sentence of 8-12 years?

That would still deter and offer a chance to correct a criminal but not punish an innocent so harshly.

Human error will be a part of any system. It can be minimized, but never fully removed.

When the thing you're talking about supporting is killing people, the inherent flaws are absolutely a reason not to support it.
Not like the people who deserve to get death do in America anyway, people are more likely to die on death row before getting executed.

Make it so death penalty != life imprisonment on death row, and minimize or remove eye-witness testimony in cases where death is the sentence. In questionable cases, no death penalty. In cases where it is obvious and known who is going around killing people, then ta da, death penalty. Isn't like being in jail for 60 years is doing them a favor. They are using up resources and space, when they get out they won't be able to get jobs because they had been arrested and decades have passed since they were out in the real world. Who is life imprisonment for these people helping?

And without the death penalty, and the absurd legal system, we better find ourselves a new planet and method of colonizing it quick so that we don't have jails every block just to keep up with all the people in jail.

False. The preponderence of evidence points to someone having committed a crime the state is OBLIGATED to press charges for that crime.


You know, that statement is all fine and dandy, and I dont think that anybody will try to dispute the obligation of the juicidal system to try and resolve the case, but there is nevertheless the problem, that it seems like the state just sentenced the first poor bastard that they could get their claws on.
It may be just a romantic fantasy of mine, but in my opinion, the whole juicidal system shouldnt be as much about just screwing over some random guy as it should be about, you know, actually finding and sentencing the true perpretrators.

$12,000 a year is a horribly low (and outright wrong) number for the cost of a prison inmate per year. In the state of Texas, an inmante in maximum security (all life sentences and death row) costs the state $80,000 a year. 2.16 million an execution sounds about right. Now, with your own numbers of 51 years and $200,000 for appeals, life in prison adds up to $4,280,000. That's a difference of 2.12 million. Texas has executed 405 people since 1976, saving the state 858.6 million. Next, Texas only has a population of 23.5 million, not 100 million. Remember that not all of that 23.5 million pays taxes, many are just too young.

It's not that I care about my tiny tax difference as much as I care about what else the state did with that 858.6 million. Given the choice between a road network that isn't full of potholes and looking less barbaric to the international community, I'd go with better roads every time.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where anyone placed any of the "error in judgement" on the 12 individuals on the sidelines...the peers..the jurors. These are the folks who are presented all aspects of the case, both prosecution and defense, and after much deliberation, discussion, and probably heart-burn and headaches, make the decision on guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented.

The state may have failed in the gathering and/or presentation of evidence, the defense team may have not done enough prep to keep the guy out of jail, maybe the guy presented himself in a way that would sway the 12, but the regular folks; you and me, and the guy down the street, are the ones who put him in jail for 26 years.

Laaaaate to the thread but how the hell is it deemed okay to sentence anyone to life for rape to begin with? The fuck?!

The Violence Against Woman Federal act discourges use of lie detectors in rape cases because whe shouldn't relive the case by questioning, and the woman never lies.

Just point your finger and send the man away for life.

Laaaaate to the thread but how the hell is it deemed okay to sentence anyone to life for rape to begin with? The fuck?!
You obviously haven't been following legislation put into place by our Puritanical Matriarchial Socialist society.

Shame on you for choosing to be a man.

The Violence Against Woman Federal act discourges use of lie detectors in rape cases because whe shouldn't relive the case by questioning, and the woman never lies.

Just point your finger and send the man away for life.


You obviously haven't been following legislation put into place by our Puritanical Matriarchial Socialist society.

Shame on you for choosing to be a man.
I'm not American, thank you very much, but I still have been following "legislation put into place by your society" and expressing my misgivings about it even though you will have to excuse me while I go guffaw about the "Matriarchal Socialist" bit.

But then, I'm only a woman, and really, what do you expect from those bossy bitches?





There are such weird people popping up ever so often on NSG. <<

Edit: Ugh, no, he edited in a PMS "joke"? Please kill me now.

$12,000 a year is a horribly low (and outright wrong) number for the cost of a prison inmate per year. In the state of Texas, an inmante in maximum security (all life sentences and death row) costs the state $80,000 a year. 2.16 million an execution sounds about right. Now, with your own numbers of 51 years and $200,000 for appeals, life in prison adds up to $4,280,000. That's a difference of 2.12 million. Texas has executed 405 people since 1976, saving the state 858.6 million. Next, Texas only has a population of 23.5 million, not 100 million. Remember that not all of that 23.5 million pays taxes, many are just too young.

It's not that I care about my tiny tax difference as much as I care about what else the state did with that 858.6 million. Given the choice between a road network that isn't full of potholes and looking less barbaric to the international community, I'd go with better roads every time.

Wow. I wonder how many innocents died after unjust executions so you don't have to feel a bump on the road.

And that assumes that death penalty procedures aren't more EXPENSIVE, which they are.

Wow. I wonder how many innocents died after unjust executions so you don't have to feel a bump on the road.

And that assumes that death penalty procedures aren't more EXPENSIVE, which they are.

I find it odd that people are arguing with hypothetical numbers when the real numbers have always said, IMS, that getting someone from death row to dead costs more than life imprisonment.

I find it odd that people are arguing with hypothetical numbers when the real numbers have always said, IMS, that getting someone from death row to dead costs more than life imprisonment.

I wonder why the issue of cost should be used as a justification one way or the other in the first place. The discussion should be what moral direction our country needs to point in, not how much it will cost to do.

I wonder why the issue of cost should be used as a justification one way or the other in the first place. The discussion should be what moral direction our country needs to point in, not how much it will cost to do.

Indeed, but such is the world we live in. Every department in every government no doubt has a team of people paid to do nothing but calculate how much certain changes would cost relative to maintaining the status quo.

This has nothing to do with the death penalty; the death penalty wasn't even considered for the sentence at all. Outlawing the death penalty would have no affect on situations like this.

Maybe in your mind you "proved" something, but not in any other place.

Why don't you construct an argument or say something meaningful, rather than patting yourself on the back for imaginary victories.

Actually it does. This proves that innocent people can be convicted of crimes they didn't commit. If it could happen to this man it could happen to someone who is then sentenced to death.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/03/dna.exoneration.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview).

Proving, yet again, that the death penalty is a damned stupid idea. What are your thoughts?

This has nothing to do with the death penalty; the death penalty wasn't even considered for the sentence at all. Outlawing the death penalty would have no affect on situations like this.

Maybe in your mind you "proved" something, but not in any other place.

Why don't you construct an argument or say something meaningful, rather than patting yourself on the back for imaginary victories.

This has nothing to do with the death penalty; the death penalty wasn't even considered for the sentence at all. Outlawing the death penalty would have no affect on situations like this.

Maybe in your mind you "proved" something, but not in any other place.

Why don't you construct an argument or say something meaningful, rather than patting yourself on the back for imaginary victories.

Uh... no. His point was that wrong convictions happen, even to the extent that they are only discovered after 23 years. I.e. the system isn't as fail-safe as death penalty proponents like to believe. I.e. if this happened to someone who'd been executed 18 years ago, it'd decidedly be too late.

Not that I really had to explain that seeing how you already knew exactly what he meant. :rolleyes:

Indeed, but such is the world we live in. Every department in every government no doubt has a team of people paid to do nothing but calculate how much certain changes would cost relative to maintaining the status quo.

True but we dont use costs in determining the Constitutionality of an issue either.

This has nothing to do with the death penalty; the death penalty wasn't even considered for the sentence at all. Outlawing the death penalty would have no affect on situations like this.

Maybe in your mind you "proved" something, but not in any other place.

Why don't you construct an argument or say something meaningful, rather than patting yourself on the back for imaginary victories.

You know, I'm really not surprised you missed the point by a fucking mile...

But then again, that's really par for the course for you, isn't it?

When you've actually learned how to form a logical cohesive thought without having to be lead through the argument with lots of handholding, repetition, and no big words, you may have earned the right to have me take your participatation in this discussion with anything more than bemusement and a sense of pity. Until then, not so much. May I suggest something more appropriate for your reading level though? Most book stores have wonderful young adult sections, and you may find some of the things in there facinating

Now run along child, adults are talking.

Actually it does. This proves that innocent people can be convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

I meant prove something relevant and meaningful. I can "prove" to you that up is the opposite of down. But I would be doing nothing but a strawman fallacy in assuming that your argument hinged on up and down being synonymous.

Similarly, no one's argument for the death penalty hinges on the fact that there are no wrongfully convicted. At least not mine.

If it could happen to this man it could happen to someone who is then sentenced to death.

It could also happen to someone who is merely sentenced to life and subsequently dies of prison violence or a drug overdose or suicide too. I fail to see what this might prove. If you think this just deconstructs all arguments in favor of the death penalty I don't think you understand them.

You know, I'm really not surprised you missed the point by a fucking mile...

But then again, that's really par for the course for you, isn't it?

I was tired of constructing people's arguments for them. Apparently you were tired of constructing arguments for yourself. One of us is being rational on that manner.

When you've actually learned how to form a logical cohesive thought without having to be lead through the argument with lots of handholding, repetition, and no big words, you may have earned the right to have me take your participatation in this discussion with anything more than bemusement and a sense of pity.

You really LOVE the ad hominem fallacy. But really, save your bitchy attitude for someone who's impressed with whiny emo-angst. Do you have a girlfriend who's of legal age?

Until then, not so much. May I suggest something more appropriate for your reading level though? Most book stores have wonderful young adult sections, and you may find some of the things in there facinating

Now run along child, adults are talking.

The sad thing is you really think you just put me in my place.

I meant prove something relevant and meaningful. I can "prove" to you that up is the opposite of down. But I would be doing nothing but a strawman fallacy in assuming that your argument hinged on up and down being synonymous.

Similarly, no one's argument for the death penalty hinges on the fact that there are no wrongfully convicted. At least not mine.
It doesn't have to address an argument for the death penalty in order to be an argument against the death penalty. It simply has to address the death penalty.



It could also happen to someone who is merely sentenced to life and subsequently dies of prison violence or a drug overdose or suicide too. I fail to see what this might prove. If you think this just deconstructs all arguments in favor of the death penalty I don't think you understand them.

I don't think that at all.

The sad thing is you really think you just put me in my place.

See, here's the thing. Yes, I may be an egotistical bastard, but that doesn't change the fact that your your ascinine, pedantic, and frankly nonsencal winge, you made it clear that either you understood my point perfectly, and just wanted to whine like a petulant child, in which case, I'm better than you, or you truly didn't understand it, in which case I'm obviously smarter than you.

And if you feel the need to act like a petulant little child because of some raging inferiority complex well...that's ok, it really doesn't bother me.

But if you think you making some stupid little rant and me pointing the finger at you and laughing means I think I "put you in your place", well then, no, of course not.

You did that all by yourself, and made it quite apparent to everyone here exactly where your place is.

in my opinion? With lots, and lots of money.

DARN YOU! you took my standpoint!

See, here's the thing. Yes, I may be an egotistical bastard, but that doesn't change the fact that your your ascinine, pedantic, and frankly nonsencal winge, you made it clear that either you understood my point perfectly, and just wanted to whine like a petulant child, in which case, I'm better than you, or you truly didn't understand it, in which case I'm obviously smarter than you.

So your point really has nothing to do with the death penalty, and more to do with your need to prove yourself "smarter" or "better" than people you obviously don't know on an internet forum.

Thanks for clarifying. Now I'm going to have a discussion with the people who, unlike you, are here to have discussions. I hope you feel better about yourself in the future.

It doesn't have to address an argument for the death penalty in order to be an argument against the death penalty. It simply has to address the death penalty.

The original post did not address the death penalty. Do note that Neo Art's subsequent "arguments" didn't either.

I don't think that at all.

So what do you think then? Or do I get to make up what you think, the same way everyone gets to make up what Neo Art was "really" trying to say?

The original post did not address the death penalty. Do note that Neo Art's subsequent "arguments" didn't either.
I thought that the argument(death penalty is bad because(among other things) innocent people could be executed) was that well known that most people would make the connection on their own. Though NA probably should have put it in anyway, for the newcomers. But that's just what I thought. For all I know NA was just trying to blow his own horn, or whatever you're saying he was trying to do.



So what do you think then? Or do I get to make up what you think, the same way everyone gets to make up what Neo Art was "really" trying to say?

That the fact that innocent people could be convicted and sentenced to death is a reason to stop sentencing people to death.

I thought that the argument(death penalty is bad because(among other things) innocent people could be executed) was that well known that most people would make the connection on their own.

Also well enough known that just alluding to it, and then calling this allusion "proof," and then getting hissy at people for not accepting this as "proof," is not sufficient for an actual argument.

Why, well enough known that even making an argument with regards to this is not "proof." But at least making an argument would be a start to discussion.

That the fact that innocent people could be convicted and sentenced to death is a reason to stop sentencing people to death.

OK, so is the fact that innocent people could be convicted and sentenced to life in prison reason enough to stop sentencing people to imprisonment?

So your point really has nothing to do with the death penalty, and more to do with your need to prove yourself "smarter" or "better" than people you obviously don't know on an internet forum.



You know, I'm gonna spell this out nice and cleanly on the off chance that you still just dont' get it. My original OP made a point. It was a point that any intellectualy honest person with a pulse and 5 braincells would figure out but you either:

a) did understand it fully and just wanted to on some little rant because either you have some massive inferiority complex that needs to get exercised, which, frankly, is well deserved, but really is something you need to get a grip on, or some raging hardon brought on by some frustrated and unresolved masturbatory homosexual fantasy involving you, me, crisco and a cruise ship, in which case, I'm flattered honey, but you really ain't my type

and/or

b) you really just didn't get it.

Now you might think I'm off on some crusade to "prove" that I'm better than you, but I'm really not. You behavior RE: A and/or B did all the proving for me. You quite readily did that yourself.

All I did, as I said, is point and laugh.

I hope you feel better about yourself in the future.

Ah, you know, I'm not yet 30, with a fantastic education, a great job, and very successful, highly financially secure and with a truly fantastic girl who not only is hot as hell but if anything smarter than I am with a sex drive that would put most men to shame.

I have a great life and feel absolutly fantastic about myself.

How about you?

Here's a thing I've been trying to make on the death penalty. Inform me if my statistics are innacurate, or improvable. I think I've made a lot of cost concessions to death penalty advocates, but tell me what you guys think.

• The average family of five can live luxuriously off $60,000 a year.
• So lets say one person living luxuriously needs $12,000 a year.
• Since prisoners don’t necessarily live luxuriously, but do need security, lets say they need about $10,000 a year.
• 3,254 offenders were under sentence of death in the United States as of December 31, 2005.
• The average age of one executed is 39.
• The average amount of time spent before an execution is 10.26 years.
• So we’ll start with the person at 29, they spend 10 years in jail.
• This costs us $100,000.
• There are also many appeals allowed, which adds to the cost.
• In most cases, the death penalty is not used, and the individual is incarcerated for life. Only 12% of the original accused are executed.
• We will end up paying $3,254,000 this year for supporting people on death row.
• This will continue for ten years, making it around $32,540,000.
• All of their executions (combined) will cost us around $260,000 (though actually a little more).
• We will have to pay for all of their appeals (can’t really be calculated), but lets say this is $500,000 each.
• This adds up to $1,627,000,000 for all of them.
• This all adds up to $1,659,800,000.
• Divided up by say 100 million taxpayers gives us about $16.6.
• Do consider that I’m giving a lot of leniency here, costs of trials often vary, but North Carolina found it paid 2.16 million per execution, which is more than what I’m calculating.

Life in Prison
• Lets say all these death row people live to be 80, that’s 51 years.
• Also, since their appeals aren’t as frequent/costly, lets say we spend $200,000 on each. (Perhaps less or more in reality, I’m just taking a stab at it)
• In the end that means $2,310,340,000.
• Lets subtract that from the death penalty estimate.
• We end up with $650,540,000.

Finally
• Divide that by 100 million for the taxpayers, and you have about $6.5 per year.
• Around 1 out of every 10 people on death row is proven innocent, and there are doubts about many.
• So in other words, when one supports the death penalty, one is saying that they care more for $6.5 than protecting innocent lives.

Wow! What cheapskates you are. In the UK, the cost of keeping one person in prison is £17,000 ($34,000) per year.

Trostia's right. You're a bitch. Nobody cares how smart or successful you are. He's the one with the inferiority complex, but you're the one ranting about how awesome and smart and superior you are? Wtf mate?

Also well enough known that just alluding to it, and then calling this allusion "proof," and then getting hissy at people for not accepting this as "proof," is not sufficient for an actual argument.

Why, well enough known that even making an argument with regards to this is not "proof." But at least making an argument would be a start to discussion.
Which is so much worse than getting hissy at someone for not spelling out a well known argument for those who just tuned in.



OK, so is the fact that innocent people could be convicted and sentenced to life in prison reason enough to stop sentencing people to imprisonment?
No, since people can be released from prison. They can't be released from being dead.
Trostia's right. You're a bitch. Nobody cares how smart or successful you are. He's the one with the inferiority complex, but you're the one ranting about how awesome and smart and superior you are? Wtf mate?

Flaming will get you nowhere. Also, in b4 you're called a puppet.

You know, I'm gonna spell this out nice and cleanly on the off chance that you still just dont' get it. My original OP made a point. It was a point that any intellectualy honest person with a pulse and 5 braincells would figure out but you either:

Your original OP made no point. You hinted and danced at a point, and you certainly could have made one (as others have done in your absence), but mostly just congratulated yourself.

But again, your real "point" is your insecurity. You are here for your own psychological health.

a) did understand it fully and just wanted to on some little rant because either you have some massive inferiority complex

Of course, *I* must be the one with an inferiority complex, that is why *you* are the one who will actually IGNORE argument in favor of calling others "inferior" to you!

Brilliant.

that needs to get exercised, which, frankly, is well deserved, but really is something you need to get a grip on, or some raging hardon brought on by some frustrated and unresolved masturbatory homosexual fantasy involving you, me, crisco and a cruise ship, in which case, I'm flattered honey, but you really ain't my type

This says a lot more about you than me. Fascinating. Frankly, what it says about you isn't very flattering.


b) you really just didn't get it.

I notice this really is your standard "argument." Apparently you can't show how anyone is wrong exactly, but you can certainly say - many times - how they are too stupid and obviously just didn't understand the grand, complicated thought patterns of their argument. (Thought patterns that you didn't feel compelled to write down, but never mind that - it's just one more fact easily ignored.)

Now you might think I'm off on some crusade to "prove" that I'm better than you, but I'm really not. You behavior RE: A and/or B did all the proving for me. You quite readily did that yourself.

Do you honestly believe that my "behavior" proved JACK SHIT about you being "superior?"

Whether you're out to "prove" your superiority, or you just take any opportunity to claim it, it's the same thing. Your insecurity.

All I did, as I said, is point and laugh.

And that is all you did. Want me to pretend that's a rational argument, pointing and laughing? "Ha ha, you responded to a stupid OP! Joke's on YOU, buddy!"


Ah, you know, I'm not yet 30, with a fantastic education, a great job, and very successful, highly financially secure and with a truly fantastic girl who not only is hot as hell but if anything smarter than I am with a sex drive that would put most men to shame.

...you just completely lack the ability to argue without resorting to logical fallacies and long rants about how inferior you believe your opponents to be.

That's about as convincing as your "proof" to begin with.


I have a great life and feel absolutly fantastic about myself.

How about you?

I think you need to argue some more on the internet. Clearly, something in your life is making you dreadfully unhappy - either that or you're just so miserably inept at argument that you honestly believe that going "LOL I WIN!" and then "LOL IM SUPERIOR" are valid debate tactics.

Which is so much worse than getting hissy at someone for not spelling out a well known argument for those who just tuned in.

Yes, yes it is.

No, since people can be released from prison. They can't be released from being dead.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Deaths in prison, as a result of prison life, are just as irreversible as any other kind of death.

Furthermore, you can release someone from prison, but you can't give their life and freedom back. Maybe YOU would, in such a situation, be just so thankful to be out that you wouldn't be bitter or angry...

This man in the article, however, IS bitter and angry. What do you say about it, what do you tell this guy? Just suck it up, grow to like it, at least you were eventually released so don't waste your 5 good years complaining?

Flaming will get you nowhere. Also, in b4 you're called a puppet.

Flaming apparently gets Neo Art places. But it's OK for him, right?

Dear God, how is this even still a discussion? I felt retarded for even spelling out my post to GT above because the whole thing was clearly a farce - and you two are STILL at it? Having a major flamefest about absolutely nothing except how you can't stand each other?

Why don't you just go and FINALLY put each other on ignore and save us and yourselves the braincells?

Srsly.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Deaths in prison, as a result of prison life, are just as irreversible as any other kind of death.
And such deaths should be prevented, where possible. Further, an innocent person dying in prison is not really the same as an innocent person being intentionally killed by the state.

Furthermore, you can release someone from prison, but you can't give their life and freedom back. Maybe YOU would, in such a situation, be just so thankful to be out that you wouldn't be bitter or angry...
No, you can't give them back the years they spend in prison, or undo whatever psychological harm they endured because of being imprisoned. But at least you can give them the rest of their life. What can you do with dead people? Write a letter of apology and bury it with them?

This man in the article, however, IS bitter and angry. What do you say about it, what do you tell this guy? Just suck it up, grow to like it, at least you were eventually released so don't waste your 5 good years complaining?
I don't believe anything I, or anyone else could say would alleviate his anger. Should he have been left in prison then?

Flaming apparently gets Neo Art places. But it's OK for him, right?

I believe you know the way to moderation.

Dear God, how is this even still a discussion? I felt retarded for even spelling out my post to GT above because the whole thing was clearly a farce - and you two are STILL at it? Having a major flamefest about absolutely nothing except how you can't stand each other?

Why don't you just go and FINALLY put each other on ignore and save us and yourselves the braincells?

Srsly.

Look.... if this thread is closed, or I lose interest in it, I'll stop posting in it.

Until that happens, I'm gonna post in it, and there's basically nothing you can do to stop me.

Proclaiming "win" does not end discussion. Proclaiming "proof" doesn't make it so.

Now look here - people who were sentenced to prison, NOT to execution, but died anyway as a result of their sentencing:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/10/1127

How do you explain to those dead people that "LOL, Neo Art is so superior, your deaths are deserved! LOL, we can easily reverse your deaths. LOL, anyone discussing them is just stupid! LOL!"

Now look here - people who were sentenced to prison, NOT to execution, but died anyway as a result of their sentencing:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/10/1127

How do you explain to those dead people that "LOL, Neo Art is so superior, your deaths are deserved! LOL, we can easily reverse your deaths. LOL, anyone discussing them is just stupid! LOL!"

See, you could have used this link to try an make a point about the death penalty. But instead you used to to go 'Wah wah wah wah neo art wah wah wah wah'.

So yeah, would you two please just bitch at each other somewhere else?

What planet do you live on?

In some places in the world, I am sure that WOULD be luxurious.
Where I live, that would be "living in your parents' basement as an alternative to living in a refrigerator box in an alley."

Interesting. I understood the point in the OP. It was fairly clear really.

OOPS.... I mean... RANT RAVE RANT RANT RAVE.

Seriously, GT, you spend a lot of time going off, but this is totally silly. You're getting mad at someone else for not making something entirely obvious that was entirely obvious. Nearly everyone here understood his point. That you didn't is a reason for you to ask questions and accept any clarifications, not whine and cry about how it wasn't clear enough in the first place.

The first post didn't hint at a point. It said, plainly, here's a guy that was clearly innocent who was found guilty and because of that I don't support the death penalty. He presents evidence and gives a conclusion and if you could follow the opening to the closing, then, welll, look internally.

The Macbeth is much more appropriate to the election season, though.

Macbeth should have listened to Banquo; he was a hoopy frood who REALLY knew where his towel was.

See, you could have used this link to try an make a point about the death penalty.

Why should I?

1) It's not MY thread. It's not MY point.

2) The link only shows what is well-known: people die, unnaturally, in prison.

3) What I was doing, and will continue to do, is lambast people too intellectually lazy or dishonest to support their own points. ESPECIALLY when they are going on about how they've "proven" something, ESPECIALLY on an issue as controversial as the death penalty, ESPECIALLY when they are the original poster.

You call that whining? I call it demanding a higher standard.


So yeah, would you two please just bitch at each other somewhere else?

Surely, if you can point me to another thread which follows conditions laid down in point 3 above, I will gladly continue to spread love, joy and happiness there too. ;)

I meant prove something relevant and meaningful. I can "prove" to you that up is the opposite of down. But I would be doing nothing but a strawman fallacy in assuming that your argument hinged on up and down being synonymous.

Similarly, no one's argument for the death penalty hinges on the fact that there are no wrongfully convicted. At least not mine.

But some people's argument AGAINST the death penalty is that it kills innocent people, that it's a permanent solution and as such we cannot reverse it when we find new evidence.

Certainly people can die in prison anyway, or they could die during trial, etc. We do our best to prevent that outcome though. We give any necessary medical care, and try to prevent suicides and murders in prison. Trying to prevent the death penalty for the same reason makes sense and, technically, you demonstrated why it's necessary to do so.

The Violence Against Woman Federal act discourges use of lie detectors in rape cases because whe shouldn't relive the case by questioning, and the woman never lies.

Just point your finger and send the man away for life.


You obviously haven't been following legislation put into place by our Puritanical Matriarchial Socialist society.

Shame on you for choosing to be a man.

Anyone else notice how fitting the handle is when attached to this post?

The first post didn't hint at a point. It said, plainly, here's a guy that was clearly innocent who was found guilty and because of that I don't support the death penalty.

It said, "Proving, yet again, that the death penalty is a damned stupid idea. What are your thoughts?"

Thanks for your euphemistic interpretation though. It's just AMAZING how everyone EXCEPT Neo Art is willing to say what he "really" meant and what he "really" said.

He presents evidence and gives a conclusion and if you could follow the opening to the closing, then, welll, look internally.

Evidence, conclusion, but not argument. No middle. No "proof." And again the argument was not "Why I don't support the death penalty," Mr Euphemism, it was "The death penalty is a damned stupid idea" and this was "Proof."

Well, it wasn't proof at all, and while YOU may be willing to PRETEND that it was, I'm not. While you're at it, you can pretend Neo Art's masturbatory flaming are valid arguments, but again, I'm not.

\3) What I was doing, and will continue to do, is lambast people too intellectually lazy or dishonest to support their own points. ESPECIALLY when they are going on about how they've "proven" something, ESPECIALLY on an issue as controversial as the death penalty, ESPECIALLY when they are the original poster.


Oh, the irony. You lambast people who are intellectually lazy? Would that include people who have to be walked through an argument by the nose or bitch and moan for ten pages because they weren't? You mean that kind of intellectually lazy?

"Well, their were two guys and since they had four arm...."
"Hold on, hold on, asshole. You haven't shown they have four arms. Show they have four arms or I'm going stomp my feet and holler till you do."
"Um, cuz there's two guys with two arms."
"So, how does that make four? And you didn't say they each had two arms. How were we supposed to know you meant that?"
"Um, 2 times 2 is four. You can't be serious."
"Prove 2 times 2 is four. I know everyone else here knows what you mean, but it's very important to me that you explain to the letter every single part of your point rather than just get into the meat of it and save everyone time."

Yeah, intellectually honest. Do you really believe anyone is buying what you're selling, GT? Well, there was that puppet with 2 posts.

Why should I?
Perhaps then you would have adding something to the discussion at hand. You know, like people usually do on a debate and discussion forum.

1) It's not MY thread. It's not MY point.
No, but it could have been your point. Or counterpoint. Or something relevant to the thread.

3) What I was doing, and will continue to do, is lambast people too intellectually lazy or dishonest to support their own points. ESPECIALLY when they are going on about how they've "proven" something, ESPECIALLY on an issue as controversial as the death penalty, ESPECIALLY when they are the original poster.

You call that whining? I call it demanding a higher standard.
So your intention is to ignore the topic at hand and instead yell and bitch at Neo Art until he meets your posting standards? I see.

Trostia's right. You're a bitch. Nobody cares how smart or successful you are. He's the one with the inferiority complex, but you're the one ranting about how awesome and smart and superior you are? Wtf mate?

Greater Trostia, Neo Art, and Rivaldia: here's a friendly suggestion:

Cool it.

It said, "Proving, yet again, that the death penalty is a damned stupid idea. What are your thoughts?"

Thanks for your euphemistic interpretation though. It's just AMAZING how everyone EXCEPT Neo Art is willing to say what he "really" meant and what he "really" said.



Evidence, conclusion, but not argument. No middle. No "proof." And again the argument was not "Why I don't support the death penalty," Mr Euphemism, it was "The death penalty is a damned stupid idea" and this was "Proof."

Well, it wasn't proof at all, and while YOU may be willing to PRETEND that it was, I'm not. While you're at it, you can pretend Neo Art's masturbatory flaming are valid arguments, but again, I'm not.

Yes, how dare he skip over a well-trodden argument that anyone who's turned on a television in the past 30 years is familiar with. How dare he? Righteous indignation. Righteous indignation.

Thanks for your euphemistic interpretation though. It's just AMAZING how everyone EXCEPT Neo Art is willing to say what he "really" meant and what he "really" said.

I also don't tend to spend my time trying to teach a cockroach quantum physics. The fact that everybody else but you seemed to understand the point I was making quite clearly, and quite correctly, I must believe the fault lies entirely with you, not me.

Evidence, conclusion, but not argument.

There's this thing called implying, and an accompanying thing called inferring. Neo Art implied the argument, and the rest of us inferred it. Except you apparently.

This thread is full of manly bitchiness and lawl.

This thread is full of manly bitchiness and lawl.

You said it.

But some people's argument AGAINST the death penalty is that it kills innocent people, that it's a permanent solution and as such we cannot reverse it when we find new evidence.

And that same argument can be applied to any other sentence. Particularly imprisonment, which is much more common.

Certainly people can die in prison anyway, or they could die during trial, etc.

Death in prison is far more common than dying during trial. Furthermore, death in prison as a result of being in prison is far more common.

We do our best to prevent that outcome though.

Just like how we do our best not to wrongfully convict the innocent. But mistakes happen, and you and I simply accept that they happen. We accept it so much that you seem to dismiss these deaths and that death penalty arguers can say they are "reversible."

So why is your acceptance of these deaths and this injustice any different than mine? The injustice being that of the innocent getting wrongfully convicted, the deaths being all the deaths that happen as a result. I accept these as part of an imperfect justice system.

We give any necessary medical care, and try to prevent suicides and murders in prison.

At the same time, we put not insignificant members of our population there. How can you reconcile this discrepancy?

Trying to prevent the death penalty for the same reason makes sense and, technically, you demonstrated why it's necessary to do so.

My point is that this is as valid an argument against imprisonment as against the death penalty. Both can often times not be reversed, both have outcomes involving death, both can happen to the innocent. This is not an argument for getting rid of the death penalty - it's for getting rid of the death penalty and imprisonment both.

Perhaps then you would have adding something to the discussion at hand. You know, like people usually do on a debate and discussion forum.


You mean like how I've been doing and now Neo Art hasn't? Yeah.

No, but it could have been your point. Or counterpoint. Or something relevant to the thread.

It is and remains my point. I guess if I want a good debate about this subject I better make the thread myself, though.

So your intention is to ignore the topic at hand

Nope, thanks for playing, but you get no points today.

and instead yell and bitch at Neo Art until he meets your posting standards? I see.

See, you see "yell and bitch," the means once again you don't comprehend what I'm saying. Run along and let the adults play.

Oh wait, is that only bitching when I do it, and when Neo Art does it it's a fucking masters thesis?

I also don't tend to spend my time trying to teach a cockroach quantum physics. The fact that everybody else but you seemed to understand the point I was making quite clearly, and quite correctly, I must believe the fault lies entirely with you, not me.

Oh, I understand the point you MIGHT have made had you been intellectually honest and actually made it. I understand the points you MIGHT make if, one day, you feel secure about yourself enough to make them.

My point is that this is as valid an argument against imprisonment as against the death penalty. Both can often times not be reversed, both have outcomes involving death, both can happen to the innocent. This is not an argument for getting rid of the death penalty - it's for getting rid of the death penalty and imprisonment both.

It's only valid if you see no difference between someone dying of natural, or unnatural but not state sanctioned causes while in prison, and the state actively taking the life of an innocent person.

I'm unsure why you don't see that distinction, other then the fact that intentionally avoiding it is the only thing that makes this "argument" work.

*snip*

No, there isn't. Your argument assumes that we get the same outcome with a lack of imprisonment.

I let go murderers, more people get murdered. I put a murdered in jail versus killing them, and nothing changes except my ability to exonerate.

You can pretend that argument is the same, but removing the death penalty costs us nothing and risks nothing. Removing imprisonment is not quite the same. Find a workable solution to the cost in lives of innocents going to prison and I'll be the first to back you up. You have an excellent reason why such a solution should be desired. Thanks for making it. It's the reason why should employ just a solution to the death penalty.

It's only valid if you see no difference between someone dying of natural, or unnatural but not state sanctioned causes while in prison, and the state actively taking the life of an innocent person.

I didn't know that the motive of their killers was relevant to your point in this thread. Seeing how your original post had to do with preventable, wrongful deaths of innocent people as a result of the justice system. It had nothing to do with whether the deaths are "sanctioned" by the state.

I didn't know that the motive of their killers was relevant to your point in this thread.

Precisely. You feel the need to create rediculous constructs and pretend that a man dying in prison, and a man being intentionally executed by the state, are equivalent acts.

But fine, I'll play the game. For an effective society to funciton, some element of punishment must be necessary, and any element of punishment has the risk of affecting the innocent, so as long as we are desiring to live in a civilized society, we must operate with a fundamentally flawed justice system, and recognize, unfortunatly, that we will convict the wrong people, and some of them will die in prison.

However, once we recognize this, we are morally, ethically, and through the fundamentals of basic human decency, do everything we possibly can to limit that risk, while still keeping our society functioning.

And since the death penalty increases the risks that innocents will die, while at the same time not in any way being necessary for a system of judicial punishment, and thus, is in no way necessary for the function of our society, our moral, ethical, and basic ideas of human decency, require that we get rid of it.

Somehow you've made the argument that because innocent people, unfortunatly, will die falsly incarcerated, that gives us the option of either ditching the justice system entirely, or just not caring and not carying about if innocents die in preventable ways. Which is a ludicrus false dichodemy.

See, again, intellectually honest people recognize that any criminal justice system will have flaws, but at the same time recognize that we have an obligation to reduce those flaws as much as possible. And most people see the death penalty as an uneccessary, and highly risky, flaw, that has no reasonable justification.

You, on the other hand, seem to argue that because the criminal justice system does, and will always, have flaws, that we shouldn't bother correcting the flaws we can correct.

I didn't know that the motive of their killers was relevant to your point in this thread. Seeing how your original post had to do with preventable, wrongful deaths of innocent people as a result of the justice system. It had nothing to do with whether the deaths are "sanctioned" by the state.
Amusing. The motives of the killers are always relevant. Meanwhile, there is a significant difference between the state carrying out its burden, which is to enforce the law as best it can, while doing everything in its power to protect the party in violation of the law from death... and enforcing the law BY killing the party in violation of the law.

You seem to think that asking that we simply no intentionally kill the people who have been shown to be in violation of the law is the same as asking that no laws be applied ever.

Offer a viable solution that allows us to continue to enforce the law without ANY deaths and you'll have the support of everyone here. Until you have such a solution, the best we can do is mitigate the deaths as much as possible.

No, there isn't. Your argument assumes that we get the same outcome with a lack of imprisonment.

Does it? Hey, we can discuss alternatives to imprisonment AND the death penalty if you'd like.

Personally, though, I'm OK with stripping humans of their freedom, even if there's a chance they are innocent, and incarcerating them with violent degenerates for up to and including the length of their lives - aren't you?

I let go murderers, more people get murdered. I put a murdered in jail versus killing them, and nothing changes except my ability to exonerate.

Well, of course, and people in jail can still commit crimes, adding to the death count and the number of people harmed.

You can pretend that argument is the same, but removing the death penalty costs us nothing and risks nothing.

It does risk justice, if I happen to think certain crimes warrant death as their just punishment. If I didn't think that, then no I wouldn't risk anything, but then there wouldn't be an argument either.

Removing imprisonment is not quite the same. Find a workable solution to the cost in lives of innocents going to prison and I'll be the first to back you up. You have an excellent reason why such a solution should be desired. Thanks for making it. It's the reason why should employ just a solution to the death penalty.

I contend you simply accept the wrongfully convicted, their lives ruination, their potential deaths - as part of the justice system. Because you tell yourself, it's the best system we have right now, and there aren't any workable solutions. So you accept it.

Just like I do.

Precisely. You feel the need to create rediculous constructs and pretend that a man dying in prison, and a man being intentionally executed by the state, are equivalent acts.

Neither would have died had they not been wrongfully punished by the justice system. The fact that you are immune to one man's plight - in fact, much more than *one* man, and much more than those wrongfully executed - just tells me your position of faux moralism is nothing but a handy excuse.

You don't really care about preventable deaths of innocents caused by the justice system at all - that is just a convenient excuse, one you gladly drop. Well, I drop it too - I just drop it one step earlier than you do.

I contend you simply accept the wrongfully convicted, their lives ruination, their potential deaths - as part of the justice system. Because you tell yourself, it's the best system we have right now, and there aren't any workable solutions. So you accept it.

Just like I do.

No you don't. Jocabia, and I, accept them, just as you said, because a certain level of it simply can not be prevented, and still have our society function.

You accept it when it's entirely unneccessary, in order to satisfy some perverted bloodlust guised as "justice"

There's a difference between accepting the necessary and unavoidable evil, and intentionally seeking out a greater evil.

I favor the death sentence only when overwhelming evidence supports the conviction (a combination of forensics, multiple witnesses, etc.), the defendant pleads guilty, or a convicted criminal requests the death penalty. The death penalty should apply only to cases of premeditated murder, and perhaps cases of rape - particularly the perverts who rape children.

The Duncan trial here in Idaho would indicate the death penalty according to my framework. Means of execution: All us rednecks bring our scatterguns to the penitentiary and serve as firing squad on execution day. An incinerator might work just as well, though.

"Harm no one. Beyond that, do as you see right" is the basic motto of liberty. The purpose of government is to protect society from the evil bastards who refuse to respect the rights of others.

Does it? Hey, we can discuss alternatives to imprisonment AND the death penalty if you'd like.

Personally, though, I'm OK with stripping humans of their freedom, even if there's a chance they are innocent, and incarcerating them with violent degenerates for up to and including the length of their lives - aren't you?

I'm totally okay with removing people who have been shown to have committed a crime from the general population in order to protect that population. BECAUSE it protects the population. However, I'm not willing to go any further in harming that person than that, because we know some people are wrongfully convicted.

Once seperated from the population, I would do everything reasonable to protect that person from additional harm. You haven't given reasons to avoid doing so. In fact, you've shown exactly WHY we should do so. Thanks for helping my argument.



Well, of course, and people in jail can still commit crimes, adding to the death count and the number of people harmed.

So can people out in the general population. If the argument for the death penalty was "we have to protect other prisoners from this guy", you might have a point. However, that's not an argument that's ever been used to justify the legal killing of prisoners. In fact, there are alternatives that don't require death and we often use those alternatives.


It does risk justice, if I happen to think certain crimes warrant death as their just punishment. If I didn't think that, then no I wouldn't risk anything, but then there wouldn't be an argument either.

Heh. Justice? Good then you can show an objective difference between life in prison and being killed by the state in terms of justice. This should be good.

Let me know when you can show exactly how justice is served better, and remember you're going have to weigh in the innocents killed by the state on purpose.



I contend you simply accept the wrongfully convicted, their lives ruination, their potential deaths - as part of the justice system. Because you tell yourself, it's the best system we have right now, and there aren't any workable solutions. So you accept it.

Just like I do.

Uh-huh. Why ever try to improve anything?

Don't pretend you and I are anything alike. I care about every single wrongful imprisonment, every single coerced confession, every single time an innocent goes to jail when it could have been prevented.

That's why I've been a member of the innocence project and the ACLU since before I got my JD.

The difference between us is that I, regretable, recognize that some level of it is simply unpreventable, that mistakes will happen in any justice system, and the fact that innocent people go to jail is the lesser of two evils, compared to no justice system at all. I am willing to admit that while I dont' accept any preventable false imprisonment, some level of it is better than the alternative.

You, on the other hand, accept deaths that are prefectly preventable, and the prevention of which will in no tangible way diminish the impact, effectiveness, goals, or power of the justice system.

I recognize imprisonment of innocents, to some level, as necessary for our society. You seek something you recognize will result in the death of innocents, for no legitimate reason, other than to appeal to your own perverted sense of "justice"

Dammit. I agree with the above two posts

EDIT: Timewarp. I agree with the above and below posts.

You don't really care about preventable deaths of innocents caused by the justice system at all - that is just a convenient excuse, one you gladly drop. Well, I drop it too - I just drop it one step earlier than you do.

Don't pretend you and I are anything alike. I care about every single wrongful imprisonment, every single coerced confession, every single time an innocent goes to jail when it could have been prevented.

That's why I've been a member of the innocence project and the ACLU since before I got my JD.

The difference between us is that I, regretable, recognize that some level of it is simply unpreventable, that mistakes will happen in any justice system, and the fact that innocent people go to jail is the lesser of two evils, compared to no justice system at all. I am willing to admit that while I dont' accept any preventable false imprisonment, some level of it is better than the alternative.

You, on the other hand, accept deaths that are prefectly preventable, and the prevention of which will in no tangible way diminish the impact, effectiveness, goals, or power of the justice system.

I recognize imprisonment of innocents, to some level, as necessary for our society. You seek something you recognize will result in the death of innocents, for no legitimate reason, other than to appeal to your own perverted sense of "justice"

The fact is, replacing death penalty with life in prison gives more time for innocent people to be proven innocent. It creates a longer window, not merely "from conviction to execution" to be proven innocent, it adds as an additional time window all the time from when he would be proven innocent, until the time he dies naturally, for such revelation.

And as long as we willingly close that window, innocent people will be killed that would have otherwise been freed. That's the simple fact of the death penalty, as long as we have the death penalty, we will find out the innocence of poeple who would have otherwise still been alive to be freed, but are now dead from execution.

As long as we have the death penalty there will be people whose innocence is found out after execution. And to support the death penalty is either to argue you simply don't care, or that the death penalty is necessary, and those deaths simply must occur for the necessity of it.

Which is a frankly absurd argument.

No you don't. Jocabia, and I, accept them, just as you said, because a certain level of it simply can not be prevented, and still have our society function.


Oh? I wasn't aware that murders and suicides in prison, of innocents or not, were necessary to the functioning our society. Please explain.

You accept it when it's entirely unneccessary, in order to satisfy some perverted bloodlust guised as "justice"

Hey, I might describe your need to put innocent people into prison where they are invariably abused as perverted too.

Particularly since your profession will make you profit from all of this more than mine will.

There's a difference between accepting the necessary and unavoidable evil, and intentionally seeking out a greater evil.

What you call a "greater evil" is in fact, statistically, less so - more people die in prison than are executed.

Don't pretend you and I are anything alike. I care about every single wrongful imprisonment, every single coerced confession, every single time an innocent goes to jail when it could have been prevented.

It's just that some wrongful imprisonments, some coerced confessions, some innocents getting harmed or killed in prison are necessary to society. In your opinion, without a little gross injustice, society would just fall apart!


The difference between us is that I, regretable, recognize that some level of it is simply unpreventable, that mistakes will happen in any justice system, and the fact that innocent people go to jail is the lesser of two evils, compared to no justice system at all. I am willing to admit that while I dont' accept any preventable false imprisonment, some level of it is better than the alternative.

Heh what alternative again? More secure "convictions," more due process? More thinking? Can't have that, not when we have the world's highest prison population to maintain. That's a lot of potential clients, isn't it?

You, on the other hand, accept deaths that are prefectly preventable, and the prevention of which will in no tangible way diminish the impact, effectiveness, goals, or power of the justice system.

That's just one of the many intangible aspects of the concept of justice. Sure, executions are preventable. So is imprisonment. Executions are violent and scary. So is imprisonment. Executions can kill the innocent. So can imprisonment.

You're right that we're not much alike, but we are both alike in accepting a certain level of base atrocity and violence and injustice. That you hold your limit to be some universal definer - anyone over that limit is "evil" and anyone less is, I dunno, saintly - doesn't make it any less subjective or more tangible. I feel that death is a warranted punishment in some cases, and that means it is part of this infuriatingly intangible concept of justice.

I recognize imprisonment of innocents, to some level, as necessary for our society.

"To some level" is I'm sure a grand comfort to those who plea and cry out in suffering, but whose cries go unanswered and whose destiny you leave to the tender mercies of rent-a-cops and criminals.

You seek something you recognize will result in the death of innocents, for no legitimate reason, other than to appeal to your own perverted sense of "justice"

Justice is as legitimate a reason as any other. Just because you do not agree with my position on justice doesn't make it perverted.

Oh? I wasn't aware that murders and suicides in prison, of innocents or not, were necessary to the functioning our society. Please explain.



Hey, I might describe your need to put innocent people into prison where they are invariably abused as perverted too.

Particularly since your profession will make you profit from all of this more than mine will.



What you call a "greater evil" is in fact, statistically, less so - more people die in prison than are executed.



It's just that some wrongful imprisonments, some coerced confessions, some innocents getting harmed or killed in prison are necessary to society. In your opinion, without a little gross injustice, society would just fall apart!



Heh what alternative again? More secure "convictions," more due process? More thinking? Can't have that, not when we have the world's highest prison population to maintain. That's a lot of potential clients, isn't it?



That's just one of the many intangible aspects of the concept of justice. Sure, executions are preventable. So is imprisonment. Executions are violent and scary. So is imprisonment. Executions can kill the innocent. So can imprisonment.

You're right that we're not much alike, but we are both alike in accepting a certain level of base atrocity and violence and injustice. That you hold your limit to be some universal definer - anyone over that limit is "evil" and anyone less is, I dunno, saintly - doesn't make it any less subjective or more tangible. I feel that death is a warranted punishment in some cases, and that means it is part of this infuriatingly intangible concept of justice.



"To some level" is I'm sure a grand comfort to those who plea and cry out in suffering, but whose cries go unanswered and whose destiny you leave to the tender mercies of rent-a-cops and criminals.



Justice is as legitimate a reason as any other. Just because you do not agree with my position on justice doesn't make it perverted.

So this is what's it's like when the adults play GT? It just seems to be intentionally misinterpreting everything in such a way that you can appear to be right. Perhaps you're right and this is above my head. I mean, I got NA's point about how any justice system will eventually punish an innocent, but we need a justice system, so we'll just have to try our best to punish as few innocents as possible. But it never occurred to me to twist that to make it seem like NA was suggesting that we need to punish innocents in order for society to function.

I'm totally okay with removing people who have been shown to have committed a crime from the general population in order to protect that population. BECAUSE it protects the population. However, I'm not willing to go any further in harming that person than that, because we know some people are wrongfully convicted.

Once seperated from the population, I would do everything reasonable to protect that person from additional harm.

Well ya know. I would do everything reasonable to insure that people are not wrongfully convicted. But once on death row I would do everything reasonable to protect that person from "additional harm." From harm that I, with my "perverted sense of justice," have decreed they should experience. What real position of moral authority do you have simply because you arbitrarily decide that one kind of death is acceptable and another is not? I make that same decision too - it's not like being in favor of the death penalty means I'm in favor of all deaths. I draw a distinction between those I feel appropriate to justice, and those simply acceptable because of reality, and those which are unjust. Just as you do.


So can people out in the general population. If the argument for the death penalty was "we have to protect other prisoners from this guy", you might have a point. However, that's not an argument that's ever been used to justify the legal killing of prisoners. In fact, there are alternatives that don't require death and we often use those alternatives.

I'm not so much making a pro death penalty argument as arguing against the anti death penalty argument given.


Heh. Justice? Good then you can show an objective difference between life in prison and being killed by the state in terms of justice. This should be good.

Hardly, because justice is subjective. What one person feels is just, another person might call perverted and bloodthirsty. Why bother on this?

Uh-huh. Why ever try to improve anything?

Indeed, why? Well, it keeps people employed....

Well ya know. I would do everything reasonable to insure that people are not wrongfully convicted. But once on death row I would do everything reasonable to protect that person from "additional harm." From harm that I, with my "perverted sense of justice," have decreed they should experience. What real position of moral authority do you have simply because you arbitrarily decide that one kind of death is acceptable and another is not? I make that same decision too - it's not like being in favor of the death penalty means I'm in favor of all deaths. I draw a distinction between those I feel appropriate to justice, and those simply acceptable because of reality, and those which are unjust. Just as you do.

Lying doesn't general make arguments more credible. I suggest you stop doing it. I said no deaths are acceptable. None. Unavoidable, but not acceptable. There is a practical value to removing shown criminals from the population at large. I'm not sitting in moral authority, but practical authority. There is no practical value to the death penalty.

Your twisting of the argument demonstrates that you recognize that if you face it straight up, you'll lose. I agree with you by the way on that point.




I'm not so much making a pro death penalty argument as arguing against the anti death penalty argument given.

So your argument is that we have to kill prisoners in order to protect prisoners? You can't think of any other practical means to protect those same prisoners without the death penalty? If so, your argument is dismissed. In fact, since I've already listed one, your argument is dismissed.



Hardly, because justice is subjective. What one person feels is just, another person might call perverted and bloodthirsty. Why bother on this?

Ah, so now I'm required to submit to your morality. Interesting. No, thank you. I'll stick to the very practical argument for the execution of law.



Indeed, why? Well, it keeps people employed....

Avoidance. Another admission of the value of an argument.

It's just that some wrongful imprisonments, some coerced confessions, some innocents getting harmed or killed in prison are necessary to society. In your opinion, without a little gross injustice, society would just fall apart!


actually, any "gross injustice" is entirely unacceptable. This little nonsense basically proves my point that you're either incapable of having a rational discussion, or totally unwilling.

But I'll break it down for you, really slowly, and really simply, on the off chance that you're not intentionally silly and just really, really dense.

A justice system is necessary for the function of society, otherwise we have anarchy. History has proven society is preferable than anarchy (See The Leviathan for further explanation)

Any justice system will be an invention of humans

Any invention by humans will contain errors and be flawed.

A flawed justice system results in imprisonment of innocents.

Now, if we put all these concepts together (I know, I know, it's hard, but try to stay with us, you'll feel so proud of yourself when you get it), what we get is: A justice system is necessary for society, and any justice system by humans will contain error, and error results in imprisonments of innocents, soooooo....

If we want to have civilized society, imprisonment of innocents will result.

*whew* I know that was really hard for you, but we're together at this point right? you with me? you follow? Do I need to repeat myself? Just read it through as many times as it takes to get it.

Alright, now that you've read that..I'm guessing...8 or 9 times, I'm hoping it's gotten through, moving on.

Now, imprisonment of innocents is a "bad thing".

We have a moral obligation to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible, "bad things".

However, as we established already, for the existance of our society "bad things" will happen to some extent.

Therefore, if we recognize bad things will happen to some extent, but we have an obligation to eliminate "bad things". It is then our obligation to ensure that "bad things" happen as rarely as possible, and still maintain our society.

That's why we have things like constitutional rights. That's why we have things like a jury of our peers. That's why we have things like "innocent until proven guilty". That's why we have appeals, and judicial review. That's why we have this entire system to ensure that as few innocents as possible get convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

And yet, unfortunatly, it's a flawed system and it does happen, occassionally, and we can never make the justice system 100% on that fact, innocents will always be punished unfairly. All we can do, and what we must do, is ensure that it happens as rarely as possible.

The death penalty doesn't do that. The death penalty causes the death of innocent lives, and deaths of innocents that could have been prevented with no appreciable benefit.

We have an obligation to ensure that innocents are punished as little as possible without effectively neutering our justice system and making it worthless. It will happen, but we must ensure it happens as little as possible.

And the death penalty does exactly the opposite of that, it willingly accepts the death of inncoents, without any benefit.

Justice is as legitimate a reason as any other. Just because you do not agree with my position on justice doesn't make it perverted.

Because I disagree with your position on justice doesn't make it perverted no. The fact that your position on justice results in the preventable death of innocent people without serving any necessary function, on the other hand, does

So this is what's it's like when the adults play GT?

Well, that depends on how you define adults. Neo Art contextually defined it to mean, "Everyone except Greater Trostia," so in that context, no it's not what it's like.

I only used the phrase facetiously. I don't think anyone here is an adult or, if they are, that being an adult is all that it's cracked up to be.

It just seems to be intentionally misinterpreting everything in such a way that you can appear to be right. Perhaps you're right and this is above my head. I mean, I got NA's point about how any justice system will eventually punish an innocent, but we need a justice system, so we'll just have to try our best to punish as few innocents as possible. But it never occurred to me to twist that to make it seem like NA was suggesting that we need to punish innocents in order for society to function.

But that's exactly what he suggested. No twisting at all, at least not intentionally, and it's a valid enough reason too. Unless you can get a justice system that NEVER punishes the innocent, an amount of injustice is inherent in the justice system as it is. So accepting the justice system means accepting these injustices.

But that's exactly what he suggested. No twisting at all, at least not intentionally, and it's a valid enough reason too. Unless you can get a justice system that NEVER punishes the innocent, an amount of injustice is inherent in the justice system as it is. So accepting the justice system means accepting these injustices.

Accepting that injustices will happen is not at all the same as suggesting that injustices are necessary for society to function. Further, accepting that injustices will happen, but never the less striving to prevent them without sacrificing the justice system as a whole is even less like suggesting that injustices are necessary for society to function. That's like suggesting that car crashes are necessary for safe driving. And I must be blind or something, but I don't see anyone suggesting that at all. Except you, perhaps.

But that's exactly what he suggested. No twisting at all, at least not intentionally, and it's a valid enough reason too. Unless you can get a justice system that NEVER punishes the innocent, an amount of injustice is inherent in the justice system as it is. So accepting the justice system means accepting these injustices.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing, and it's foolish and silly for you to say otherwise.

"any justice system will punish innocents eventually, and we need a justice system" is entirely different than "we need to punish innocents".

We need a justice system, punished innocents is an unfortunate side effect of that. However the punishment of innocents does not, in any way, further the benefit of society. it is a side effect of something that does.

Trying to make the two seem like the same thing is foolish and stupid. But again, that's really not too unusual for you, is it?

Now you're half right and half wrong with your last point. Accepting a justice system requires accepting the punishment of innocents only to the extent that it could not further be prevented without neutering the justice system in such a way as it becomes useless. We (or at least I, can't say about you) accept any injustice, we just recognize, sadly, that it will occur. Doesn't mean we don't fight every single time we see it, just means that despite our best efforts, it will still happen.

But that's the point. maybe YOU just "accept" it. Maybe you simply "accept" that it'll happen, and that makes it ok for you when innocent people die, entirely preventably.

Accepting that injustices will happen is not at all the same as suggesting that injustices are necessary for society to function.

Well, they are if you accept that said injustices are a necessary imperfection of a justice system which is, itself, necessary for society to function.

That's like suggesting that car crashes are necessary for safe driving.

More like suggesting that car crashes are a necessary imperfection of a transportation system which is, itself, necessary for society to function.

Lying doesn't general make arguments more credible. I suggest you stop doing it. I said no deaths are acceptable. None. Unavoidable, but not acceptable.

Accusing people of lying doesn't make your argument more credible. I've already been accused of inferiority, stupidity, and an inferiority complex, so from my perspective yet another accusation on my person doesn't really change a thing.

There is a practical value to removing shown criminals from the population at large.

And, speaking practically here, such "removal" is often permanent, irreversible, and done to the innocent. So you do accept them, maybe you don't LIKE it, but you accept them as "unavoidable" and you sleep well enough at night.

Your twisting of the argument demonstrates that you recognize that if you face it straight up, you'll lose.

I'm not twisting anything, nor do I recognize your ZOMG WINNINGNESS.


So your argument is that we have to kill prisoners in order to protect prisoners?

No. Why did you think it was? Look, I can accuse you of "twisting" my argument now and of being a liar, as you have, but I think I will prefer to see it as a lack of communication.

If so, your argument is dismissed. In fact, since I've already listed one, your argument is dismissed.

Dismiss away. Both me and what I say are sticking around on this thread. (Not forever today, though. I'll be going in a few minutes so please refrain from declaring "victory.")

Ah, so now I'm required to submit to your morality.

I don't know how you translated "justice is subjective" into "Jocabia is required to submit to my morality."

Avoidance. Another admission of the value of an argument.

You asked, "Why bother changing anything?" Not only was this not really relevant to anything I've said, but now that I answered it facetiously my answer is some "admission" of - again - your OMG I WINZ WINZ WINZ.

That's very tiresome and, honestly, it seems like you're the one "twisting" things. It's like I say, "1+2=3" and you respond, "Oh, so you think people who enjoy the color green need to be violently sodomized for ten days and nights?"

actually, any "gross injustice" is entirely unacceptable. This little nonsense basically proves my point that you're either incapable of having a rational discussion, or totally unwilling.

But I'll break it down for you, really slowly, and really simply, on the off chance that you're not intentionally silly and just really, really dense.


Okay, let's see what you got then. It's true, I could be dense, and irrational, and a cockroach, and inferior, and stupid. And you could be all sorts of things that the moderators would, incidentally, also not like for me to spell out.


A justice system is necessary for the function of society, otherwise we have anarchy. History has proven society is preferable than anarchy (See The Leviathan for further explanation)

Any justice system will be an invention of humans

Any invention by humans will contain errors and be flawed.

A flawed justice system results in imprisonment of innocents.

Now, if we put all these concepts together (I know, I know, it's hard, but try to stay with us, you'll feel so proud of yourself when you get it), what we get is: A justice system is necessary for society, and any justice system by humans will contain error, and error results in imprisonments of innocents, soooooo....

If we want to have civilized society, imprisonment of innocents will result.

Thanks for clarifying, but you haven't told me anything I already know. You've basically agreed - you accept injustice (imprisonment of innocents and all that might entail) because you believe society requires it.

I however, accept injustice (execution of innocents), and for the same reason. See how that works?


Now, imprisonment of innocents is a "bad thing".

We have a moral obligation to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible, "bad things".

However, as we established already, for the existance of our society "bad things" will happen to some extent.

Therefore, if we recognize bad things will happen to some extent, but we have an obligation to eliminate "bad things". It is then our obligation to ensure that "bad things" happen as rarely as possible, and still maintain our society.

Indeed...

That's why we have things like constitutional rights. That's why we have things like a jury of our peers. That's why we have things like "innocent until proven guilty". That's why we have appeals, and judicial review. That's why we have this entire system to ensure that as few innocents as possible get convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

And yet, unfortunatly, it's a flawed system and it does happen, occassionally, and we can never make the justice system 100% on that fact, innocents will always be punished unfairly. All we can do, and what we must do, is ensure that it happens as rarely as possible.


Quite so. Innocents will always be punished unfairly. You want it to happen as rarely as possible?

Then answer this. Which do you think happens more often - someone is wrongfully imprisoned, or someone is wrongfully executed?

The death penalty doesn't do that. The death penalty causes the death of innocent lives, and deaths of innocents that could have been prevented with no appreciable benefit.

Ah, "with no appreciable benefit." Did you not just now outline how without a justice system, there is anarchy? Yes you did. So the benefit is having a functioning society and a system of justice.

We have an obligation to ensure that innocents are punished as little as possible without effectively neutering our justice system and making it worthless.

It will happen, but we must ensure it happens as little as possible.

And the death penalty does exactly the opposite of that, it willingly accepts the death of inncoents, without any benefit.

Again, you must add this "without any benefit" clause. I find that very telling.

Well, you may be blind to justice, you may call the implementation of justice "bloodthirsty," but neither act constitutes a valid argument for neutering our justice system nor for bringing about anarchy. Good-day (for now!)

Wait, GT...has your argument seriously become, "People already die in prison, so we should just kill them ourselves?"

Well, they are if you accept that said injustices are a necessary imperfection of a justice system which is, itself, necessary for society to function.

More like suggesting that car crashes are a necessary imperfection of a transportation system which is, itself, necessary for society to function.
They aren't necessary imperfections. They're unavoidable imperfections. Unavoidable and necessary are two very different words. I struggle to see how you can maintain any standard of intellectual honesty while continuing to read 'necessary' whenever I, Jocabia, or Neo Art write 'unavoidable', or some other word to that affect.

Wait, GT...has your argument seriously become, "People already die in prison, so we should just kill them ourselves?"

He's not actually arguing for the death penalty, you see. He's arguing against Neo Art, and everything he says, and everyone who doesn't join him in doing so. Somehow I suspect that if NA made a thread on how the sky is blue, GT would be there arguing with him.

More like suggesting that car crashes are a necessary imperfection of a transportation system which is, itself, necessary for society to function.

And there is the evidence you're lying. You reworded his statement to make it clear what you actually mean, but reworded our statements in the opposite way (to completely alter what we're saying). Your rewording is an admission that you KNOW that it's neccessary to address the fact that you are not endorsing car accidents when you endorse a societal need for automobile transportation. Nor are you endorsing the death of innocents when you endorse a justice system. What we ENDORSE is avoiding those accidents and those deaths whenever possible. WHENEVER possible. So if we can do it by a change in the way prisons are run, we'd do so. If we can do it by capturing less innocents, we'd do so. If we can do it, and we can, by revoking the death penalty, we'd do so. So let's. No one, except you, has every acted like the death or incarceration of an innocent is EVER a good thing. We simply said it's unavoidable. However, that doesn't mean that if you can make it 50% of what it is now, you shouldn't. Your argument has very openly been since we already have people dying, what difference does it make if we kill more. And, since you're likely going to claim it's not, now would be a good time to stop making the fact that it already happens an excuse for the death penalty.

Would you like to playing this game? Cuz I'm enjoying laughing at you, but really, you're not make any rational argument at all. What you're doing resembles debate like I resemble Janet Jackson.

They aren't necessary imperfections. They're unavoidable imperfections. Unavoidable and necessary are two very different words. I struggle to see how you can maintain any standard of intellectual honesty while continuing to read 'necessary' whenever I, Jocabia, or Neo Art write 'unavoidable', or some other word to that affect.



He's not actually arguing for the death penalty, you see. He's arguing against Neo Art, and everything he says, and everyone who doesn't join him in doing so. Somehow I suspect that if NA made a thread on how the sky is blue, GT would be there arguing with him.

Dude, stop noticing these things. You're being overly rational. Can't you see he's actually saying 1+2=3 and we're twisting his words. Certainly it can't be the other way around. If he says we said necessary and that we endorse killing innocents, then we do. Duh.

What you're doing resembles debate like I resemble Janet Jackson.
I dunno, a little blackface and I think you could pull it off.
Dude, stop noticing these things. You're being overly rational. Can't you see he's actually saying 1+2=3 and we're twisting his words. Certainly it can't be the other way around. If he says we said necessary and that we endorse killing innocents, then we do. Duh.

Ah, it all makes sense now. I guess I better get to work endorsing killing innocents.

Similarly, no one's argument for the death penalty hinges on the fact that there are no wrongfully convicted.
Grave_n_Idle seemed to think that way...


It could also happen to someone who is merely sentenced to life and subsequently dies of prison violence or a drug overdose or suicide too.
Now look here - people who were sentenced to prison, NOT to execution, but died anyway as a result of their sentencing:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/10/1127

How do you explain to those dead people that "LOL, Neo Art is so superior, your deaths are deserved! LOL, we can easily reverse your deaths. LOL, anyone discussing them is just stupid! LOL!"
I'm surprised by the lack of distinction between government sanctioned kiling, and non-government sanctioned killing.

But some people's argument AGAINST the death penalty is that it kills innocent people, that it's a permanent solution and as such we cannot reverse it when we find new evidence.
That's my strongest argument against capital punishment, at least.


Certainly people can die in prison anyway, or they could die during trial, etc. We do our best to prevent that outcome though. We give any necessary medical care, and try to prevent suicides and murders in prison. Trying to prevent the death penalty for the same reason makes sense and, technically, you demonstrated why it's necessary to do so.
And that same argument can be applied to any other sentence. Particularly imprisonment, which is much more common.
Not really - again, note the difference between the government actively killing, and the government actively trying to keep alive.



So why is your acceptance of these deaths and this injustice any different than mine? The injustice being that of the innocent getting wrongfully convicted, the deaths being all the deaths that happen as a result. I accept these as part of an imperfect justice system.
But why won't you try to reduce the risk of fatal mistakes? Why won't you support removing a punishment that guarantees that an innocent will die if properly administered, and replacing it with a type of punishment where the fatalities have a much less risk of happening?


My point is that this is as valid an argument against imprisonment as against the death penalty. Both can often times not be reversed, both have outcomes involving death, both can happen to the innocent. This is not an argument for getting rid of the death penalty - it's for getting rid of the death penalty and imprisonment both.
No, it's not. Again that's due to the difference of who does the killing and why the person is killed.

And to throw some numbers at you:
There were 368 cases of homicide in US prisons and jails in the period between 1980 and 2003 (Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics) - and during the same period 882 people were executed in the US. (Source: Death Penalty Information Center)

Total number of homicides in 2000 was 8, in 2001 it was 6, in 2002 it was 7, and in 2003 it was 6.

These numbers should illustrate that it is possible to reduce prison deaths without doing away with the prison sentence. Indeed, the prison population has reached a record high as the number of homicides have reached a record low.


I didn't know that the motive of their killers was relevant to your point in this thread. Seeing how your original post had to do with preventable, wrongful deaths of innocent people as a result of the justice system. It had nothing to do with whether the deaths are "sanctioned" by the state.
But capital punishment is only government sanctioned killing. Of course the motivation of the killers would be relevant.

Oh? I wasn't aware that murders and suicides in prison, of innocents or not, were necessary to the functioning our society. Please explain.
They aren't - hence the ongoing fight to reduce the numbers.


What you call a "greater evil" is in fact, statistically, less so - more people die in prison than are executed.
Umm... weeeell...

Suicides and homicides in US prisons in 2000: 71
Number of people executed in 2000: 85

Suicides and homicides in US prisons in 2001: 70
Number of people executed in 2001: 66

Suicides and homicides in US prisons in 2002: 68
Number of people executed in 2002: 71

Suicides and homicides in US prisons in 2003: 65
Number of people executed in 2003: 65

Same sources as above. As you can see, suicides in US prisons and jails make a huge difference to the numbers. But even they have declined and continue to fall.


Heh what alternative again? More secure "convictions," more due process? More thinking? Can't have that, not when we have the world's highest prison population to maintain. That's a lot of potential clients, isn't it?
Safer prisons would be a start. Other countries have safer prisons, even per capita of the prison population.


Thanks for clarifying, but you haven't told me anything I already know. You've basically agreed - you accept injustice (imprisonment of innocents and all that might entail) because you believe society requires it.

I however, accept injustice (execution of innocents), and for the same reason. See how that works?
Um... I don't.

This never would have happened if we didn't have prisons. *nod*

Thanks for clarifying, but you haven't told me anything I already know. You've basically agreed - you accept injustice (imprisonment of innocents and all that might entail) because you believe society requires it.

I however, accept injustice (execution of innocents), and for the same reason. See how that works?

No, not really, because, see, here we have a problem, you haven't actually demonstrated that the death penalty is in any way required of society. I think everyone here will agree that a society needs some form of punishment for crimes, that we require punishment for crimes,

Your argument is that not only does society require punishment for crimes, but society requires the death penalty. Now, there's a problem with this argument. Actually, a great deal more than just one problem. In fact, just to name twenty of them:

Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Twenty industrialized, developed nations with democratically elected governments and functioning economies. Not one of them has the death penalty.

So I'm unsure by what basis you justify your claim that society "requires" the death penalty, when, the last time I checked, Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, along with the states of Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, West Virginia Vermont and Wisconsin seem to be doing ok.

Perhaps I'm blind but, living as I do in Massachusetts, I have yet to see society crumble around me because our state government decided to stop executing people.

And, as I note, the last time I checked, the governments of Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have yet to decend into anarchy.

So unless you're able to show me how these twenty nations, as well as the aformentioned 10 states, are on the brink of overthrow and about to be plunged into anarchy, your argument that the death penalty is somehow required for the function of society should, at the risk of being "punny", taken out back and shot.

Now, please, enlighten me, you say that implementation of your brand of "justice" would neuter our justice system and/or bring about anarchy, I have given you the perfect setup to prove your argument. I have listed twenty nations, and ten states.

Please, demonstrate for me how they are in anarchy. Tell me how I, right now, in Boston, am living in an anarchical state.

Here's your chance, redeam yourself. All you need to do is prove to me how these 20 nations have a "neutered justice system" and are on the brink of anarchy and you would have proven yourself and made me look the fool.

Gimme anything you got. In fact, I'll make it easier for you. Of the 20, one can argue that Poland is the least developed and the one with the most economic problems, which I'm pretty sure has more to do with being a former soviet bloc nation and less to do with the lack of death penalty, but hell, I'll give it to you as a "gimme". So now you only have to deal with 19 of them.

Although, that might not be so good for you because, and do keep this in mind, those remaining 19 nations all have murder rates lower than the United States (Poland was the only one that had a murder rate higher, and I graciously spared you from having to argue that one), so while you're explaining how capital punishment is necessary, do explain how, in the absence of it, these 19 nations have kept their murder rate to below our own.

On that topic, do also keep in mind, that in a list of the states with the highest murder rates, of the top 10, only one (michigan) does not have the death penalty. So of the 10 states with the highest murder rate, 9 of them still have the death penalty. On the other hand, of the BOTTOM 10, those 10 states with the lowest murder rates, five of them do not have the death penalty.

All in all, of all the states without the death penalty, only one (michigan again) has a murder rate above the national average.

Then answer this. Which do you think happens more often - someone is wrongfully imprisoned, or someone is wrongfully executed?

Well, by definition, everyone who is wrongfully executed is wrongfully imprisoned, but not everyone who is wrongfully imprisoned is wrongfully executed...so I think you have figured this answer out all by yourself.

However, the point is, as I noted, a wrongfully imprisoned man is wrongfully imprisoned. A wrongfully executed man was wrongfully imprisoned, THEN wrongfully executed.

Now, unfortunatly, we can't stop wrongful imprisonment, no matter how hard we try, it will never go away completely. We try very hard to prevent it, but we know it will happen and we can never, ever, stop it entirely.

We will, regretably, imprison the wrong people from time to time, that's unavoidable. We can, however, with absolute, 100% certainty, be completely sure we never again execute the wrong person, through one very simple method.

Don't execute anybody.

And in doing so we will never again execute the wrong person. So it seems to me that the execution of innocents can be stopped by simply having no more executions.

So to advocate for executions means, you just don't care about the loss of innocent lives, and are unwilling to take a completely justifiable step to end it, or, you feel that somehow the death penalty gives us a benefit, outweighed by the loss of innocent lives, which brings me to:

Ah, "with no appreciable benefit." Did you not just now outline how without a justice system, there is anarchy? Yes you did. So the benefit is having a functioning society and a system of justice.

May I point out again how you have utterly failed to show how the death penalty is, in any way, necessary for a functioning society and a system of justice?

Just as a reminder, all you have to do to prove your argument is show me how Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are not functioning societies, while, at the same time, maintaing a murder rate less than ours, and I will retract every word of my argument.

Shouldn't be too hard for you, if you're so sure of your self.

But until then I will keep saying with no appreciable benefit, because you have yet to show while the death penalty is necessary, and you have likewise failed to show how, in the absence of necessity, it provides any real tangible benefit what so ever.

You have failed to show it to be necessary. You have failed to show it to be a deterant. You have failed to show any single good reason for it.

In short, you've generally failed.


Well, you may be blind to justice, you may call the implementation of justice "bloodthirsty," but neither act constitutes a valid argument for neutering our justice system nor for bringing about anarchy.

Well, again, if you're going to argue that removing the death penalty will "neuter our justice system" and "bring about anarchy" I'll have to refer you to the aforementioned 19 nations.

Because, from where I sit, you haven't really shown anything. You've argued why it's necessary, but failed to substantiate that in any way. you have argued why it is useful, and failed to substantiate that in any way.

You want to show it's necessary? Show how the 19 nations are failing without it. Want to show it's a deterant? Explain how the 19 nations have a murder rate less than ours.

Until then, the only argument (and I hesitate to call it such) you have actually made is that some crimes "deserve" it. Which is to say, that some people just deserve to die.

Nothing more, nothing less, just some people deserve to die. Frankly, "bloodthirsty" seems to me to be quite an appropriate description for that belief.

now I know I gave you a lot to chew on, so I'll let you take your time. Please, get back to me whenever you can, explaining to me how, as the death penalty is necessary for our society to function, Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are not functioning societies.

You'll forgive me of course, if I don't hold my breath.

Until then, the only argument (and I hesitate to call it such) you have actually made is that some crimes "deserve" it. Which is to say, that some people just deserve to die.

Snip on the rest, but just a little addendum to a, may I say, magnificent display.

It's not only "some people deserve to die", it's "some people deserve to die even if we kill innocents so they die". It's worse than "some people deserve to die" by a few miles. And because the same guy that says "some people deserve to die" wishes the government to act on HIS behalf by killing those people, therefore being exactly like the "people that deserve to die" in that he, as many of the "people that deserve to die" do, supports or accepts killing innocents just to reach his goal of a kill. Worse than that, he doesn't even have the courage the "people that deserve to die" have of taking matters into his own hands. He acts like the "people that deserve to die" vicariously, through the Government. And yet he claims that those other people "deserve to die", those other people that are no different from him. So, besides acting just like a person that "deserves to die", he's a coward, too.

Snip on the rest, but just a little addendum to a, may I say, magnificent display.

Thank ya. Eventually one does get tired of the back and forth and decides to issue a little "put up or shut up".

It's not only "some people deserve to die", it's "some people deserve to die even if we kill innocents so they die". It's worse than "some people deserve to die" by a few miles.

Quite right. "some people deserve to die" is bloodthirsty. "some people deserve to die even if we kill innocents" is not merely bloodthirsty, it's barbaric.

All I want a death penalty supporter to do is explain to me why we need the death penalty while at the same time 19 countries (actually, more than that, just those are the ones I picked) maintain developed nations, continued democracies, and functioning economies while at the same time having less murders, per capita, than we do.

And because the same guy that says "some people deserve to die" wishes the government to act on HIS behalf by killing those people, therefore being exactly like the "people that deserve to die" in that he, as many of the "people that deserve to die" do, supports or accepts killing innocents just to reach his goal of a kill.

Indeed, not really much better than a murderer in the end.

All I want a death penalty supporter to do is explain to me why we need the death penalty while at the same time 19 countries (actually, more than that, just those are the ones I picked) maintain developed nations, continued democracies, and functioning economies while at the same time having less murders, per capita, than we do.
Feel free to say "all of Europe" as every Council of Europe member state have acceded to Protocol No. 6 concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which abolishes the death penalty except in a time of war (Apart from Russia which have signed but not ratifies it) - and in addition, most European countries are signatories to Protocol No. 13 to the ECHR concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances. (The treaty explicitly bans the death penalty in all circumstances, including in war-time.)

Saves time from going with "19 countries" all of the time :)

Feel free to say "all of Europe" as every Council of Europe member state have acceded to Protocol No. 6 concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which abolishes the death penalty except in a time of war (Apart from Russia which have signed but not ratifies it) - and in addition, most European countries are signatories to Protocol No. 13 to the ECHR concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances. (The treaty explicitly bans the death penalty in all circumstances, including in war-time.)

Saves time from going with "19 countries" all of the time :)

Quite, I did consider saying that, however it's true that there are some European nations, without the death penalty which I would consider "borderline functioning", with some rather severe economic problems. Now, of course, I initially wasn't too worried, because any intellectually honest person would admit that this typically has to do with being a former eastern bloc country, and wouldn't try to argue, that, say, Bulgaria's economic and social problems were a result of not having a death penalty.

But then I remembered who I was dealing with, and decided to cut that argument off in advance. Which is why I only included the more prosporous Western European nations because while you, I, and pretty much everybody (including, I suspect, GT) knows the problems of most eastern european countries have nothing to do with lack of death penalty, I really didn't feel like giving him one final straw to grasp on to.

So those 19 developed, democratic, economically sound nations shall do.

Quite, I did consider saying that, however it's true that there are some European nations, without the death penalty which I would consider "borderline functioning", with some rather severe economic problems. Now, of course, I initially wasn't too worried, because any intellectually honest person would admit that this typically has to do with being a former eastern bloc country, and wouldn't try to argue, that, say, Bulgaria's economic and social problems were a result of not having a death penalty.

But then I remembered who I was dealing with, and decided to cut that argument off in advance. Which is why I only included the more prosporous Western European nations because while you, I, and pretty much everybody (including, I suspect, GT) knows the problems of most eastern european countries have nothing to do with lack of death penalty, I really didn't feel like giving him one final straw to grasp on to.

So those 19 developed, democratic, economically sound nations shall do.

:p

Carry on!

Snip on the rest, but just a little addendum to a, may I say, magnificent display.

It's not only "some people deserve to die", it's "some people deserve to die even if we kill innocents so they die". It's worse than "some people deserve to die" by a few miles. And because the same guy that says "some people deserve to die" wishes the government to act on HIS behalf by killing those people, therefore being exactly like the "people that deserve to die" in that he, as many of the "people that deserve to die" do, supports or accepts killing innocents just to reach his goal of a kill. Worse than that, he doesn't even have the courage the "people that deserve to die" have of taking matters into his own hands. He acts like the "people that deserve to die" vicariously, through the Government. And yet he claims that those other people "deserve to die", those other people that are no different from him. So, besides acting just like a person that "deserves to die", he's a coward, too.
Never mind the fact that we arn't killing people just to kill them so innocent people don't have to die. Never mind the fact that if we took "matters into his own hands," he would be convicted for murder.

Your argument is half-assed at best and just plain dumb at worst.

My thoughts are that the death penalty is almost never used in the United States except for homicide, this man was wrongly convicted of rape, and that you have therefore proved nothing.

At great length and with considerable ill-will, at that.

See, when I ask for someone's thoughts, I do expect them to actually think on it a bit. The fact that this man was freed from an (effectively) life imprisonment 23 years later just demonstrates, yet again, that wrongful convictions do happen, and the next time we find someone was wrongfully convicted 23 years ago, it may well be 5 years after he was executed.

I had expected the audience to be able to make this...shall we say...blatantly obvious mental connection with extreem ease and didn't feel the need to explain, ad nauseum, the entire contours of what should have been a very simple mental deduction.

Apparently I over estimated a portion of the readers.

My thoughts are that the death penalty is almost never used in the United States except for homicide, this man was wrongly convicted of rape, and that you have therefore proved nothing.

At great length and with considerable ill-will, at that.

Are you suggesting that men are never exonerated in the same way and by the same technology regarding Murder? Want me to name a few?

He was simply demonstrating how provably flawed our system is. As long as we have a flawed system, we are not in a position to dispense a permanent and extreme "justice" like the death penalty. Every case where we wrongly convict is a case we should be ashamed of. Every case where we wrongly convict is a case that should give us pause when claim the moral high ground with such an act as the death penalty. I found his argument compelling (but yes with considerable ill-will).

Jocabia, read above, specifically post #153. Do want your comments on it.

Jocabia, read above, specifically post #153. Do want your comments on it.

Oh, I read it. What is there to say? He's intentionally trying to avoid addressing the topic directly. The fact is that incarceration is a required part of civilization and the death penalty is not. It's that simple. As such, knowing that they both are flawed, one is justifiable and the other isn't. Certainly when one is required and the other is not, then you must say that with the required one, you aren't endorsing the flaws, just the requirement. With the non-required one, you have to be endorsing the flaws. If I was endorsing, say, breathing even if you happen to be in LA, one couldn't argue that then I think that people should inhale smog. However, if I was endorsing breathing in a confined space with a car running, there is no getting around that I'm also endorsing the effect exhaust would have on you as a part of that.

And the old me would have chastised you for the venom, but, truthfully, watching him butcher reason the way he is makes my eyeball throb.

Neo Art, I have said my piece.

Your thread was a waste of my time, I now leave it.

I see. You have no argument. You came here to chastise NA because a rather obvious connection, almost all of us saw right away and that was explained explicitly later in the thread, you didn't get despite these two facts annoyed you. Hmmm... I'd say it was a waste of your time. Unless your goal here was make it clear that your statements were only meant to be personal and when called out on their flaws in regards to what actually could be discussed, not defensible.

When you don't care about what you believe enough to actually defend it and, more importantly, explore it, why should anyone else? Or, you know, put those fingers deep in your ears and scream, "LALALALALA!!!"

The death penalty is the government saying "it's OK to kill people sometimes, if you think it's necessary". The effects of this are probably impossible to measure, but I don't see how they can be good.

Never mind the fact that we arn't killing people just to kill them so innocent people don't have to die. Never mind the fact that if we took "matters into his own hands," he would be convicted for murder.

Your argument is half-assed at best and just plain dumb at worst.

You mean your prisons are so badly planned that anyone can escape them? Wow, how is it that your society survives?

Also, the only way to prevent innocents from being wrongfully executed is to not execute people. The difference here is that you can restore one's freedom (and make reparations to the person) but, unless you know a pretty fucking high-level cleric, you can't raise people from the dead.

As for "if he took matters into his own hands he'd be convicted of murder", THAT'S why I pointed out that he WISHES to act like the psychopaths he wants death for, but doesn't have the guts to do it, choosing, rather, to rely on the government to be the psychopath instead.