NationStates Jolt Archive

after 12 years of being called murderers and child molestors by the press and the american public, the DA in the jonbenet ramsey case announced today that her parents are innocent.

of course her mother died 2 years ago still under the cloud of suspicion that she had killed or covered up the killing of her child.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJvIfyM8cZ9VpBrxEO0N4FhVAN_gD91QJ8SO1

is DNA the greatest thing ever or what?

unfortunately the police assumed the parents were guilty from day 1 and have left the killer of this child to go free. now it may well be too late to ever find out who did it.

Didn't care then, don't care now.
Little girl? Still dead.

People still think about this?

Evidence number 298756399876345234589762938476534729876 of why we can't have the death penalty...

People still think about this?

only when the DA makes an announcement.

after the relentless tabloid reporting on how the parents killed their daughter in various ways and for various reasons its a good thing that they are officially exhonerated.

its a rare thing.

Yay, the system works! [/sarcasm]

Evidence number 298756399876345234589762938476534729876 of why we can't have the death penalty...

Who's "we"? Or are you now an American?

People still think about this?

^this

Wife dies: Blame husband
Kid dies: Blame parents

I really hate it when the police simply assume guilt by relationship. I remmber watching a murder documentary about an Arizona man convicted of killing his wife and daughter even though most of the evidence against him was bullshit that consisted of "He got drunk and beat her once!" and "He watches porn! He's baaad!"

Most of all, I feel sorry for the mother who died while the world still thought she had killed her own child, which I believe to be the most heinous crim in the world.

Who's "we"? Or are you now an American?

We everyone. My country's constitution outright bans the death penalty, and that part in particular (along with its section, a civil rights section) can't be removed, only added to (As in, you can't remove "there won't be death penalty", but you can add "there won't be playing Celine Dion's records over and over again for 8 hours straight as a punishment").

People still think about this?

If they don't, they damn well should.

We everyone. My country's constitution outright bans the death penalty, and that part in particular (along with its section, a civil rights section) can't be removed, only added to (As in, you can't remove "there won't be death penalty", but you can add "there won't be playing Celine Dion's records over and over again for 8 hours straight as a punishment").
i'm not seeing the difference there... :D

i'm not seeing the difference there... :D

You can add it for clarification purposes, just in case someone tries to think of such a punishment and doesn't see the resemblance. ;)

this DNA test is amazing. they took dna from where the killer TOUCHED her leggings when taking them off her and putting them back on. from a crime that happened 12 years ago.

it matches the dna taken from her panties.

wow. thats forensic science at its best.

We everyone. My country's constitution outright bans the death penalty, and that part in particular (along with its section, a civil rights section) can't be removed, only added to (As in, you can't remove "there won't be death penalty", but you can add "there won't be playing Celine Dion's records over and over again for 8 hours straight as a punishment").

Anything in a government document that cannot be repealed is short sighted and fascistic, but that's for another thread I suppose.

But to say that "we everyone" cannot consider a death penalty because 2 people were exonerated after 12 YEARS of trial in a case of shoddy police work?
Please. That's like saying Al Gore is a great environmentalist for his moviemaking while ignoring his house.

If they don't, they damn well should.

We should care that a nice hunk of CP got offed by some random person 12 years after it happened?

Evidence number 298756399876345234589762938476534729876 of why we can't have the death penalty...
I reject those arguments when they derive from cases where DNA processing capabilities developed during the middle of it.

But to say that "we everyone" cannot consider a death penalty because 2 people were exonerated after 12 YEARS of trial in a case of shoddy police work?

Oh, no. Not 2 people.

More like 129, in your country alone, and counting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates)

Or you'll just admit that you're willing to sacrifice them as long as OTHER people die as well?

I reject those arguments when they derive from cases where DNA processing capabilities developed during the middle of it.

:confused:

Evidence number 298756399876345234589762938476534729876 of why we can't have the death penalty...

Not at all. Actually, since the mother is dead anyway, and would have died had she been imprisoned, it's a good example of how putting away someone innocent is not something you can just take away, as you might seem to believe. It's not "reversible." Had she been punished, either by death penalty or imprisonment (and even if not), she would have been dead either way.

Anything in a government document that cannot be repealed is short sighted and fascistic, but that's for another thread I suppose.

But to say that "we everyone" cannot consider a death penalty because 2 people were exonerated after 12 YEARS of trial in a case of shoddy police work?
Please. That's like saying Al Gore is a great environmentalist for his moviemaking while ignoring his house.

You do realize there have been far more people cleared by DNA evidence than just these two people right? As for the cheap shot at Al Gore...boring to me at this point.

DNA evidence frees 100th death row inmate

By Beth DeFalco and Dennis Wagner, The Arizona Republic

AP file
Krone was freed from prison after serving 10 years for a murder he didn't commit.

PHOENIX — As former death row inmate Ray Krone celebrated his first full day of freedom Tuesday by taking a swim and eating steak, national justice groups used his decade-long ordeal to press for an end to capital punishment.

Krone was freed from prison after serving 10 years for a murder he didn't commit.

He is the 100th condemned American to be freed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 and, as such, instantly emerged as a poster child in the national debate.

Krone seemed to revel in that new role, describing his miserable life behind bars, his loss of faith in the justice system, and his belief that capital punishment is wrong except in cases of treason.

"It's the final end, it's too late, and it's the ultimate travesty to kill an innocent person," he said.

But gallows conversation did not prevent Krone from enjoying his liberty. Amid a flurry of interview requests, he drank margaritas with friends, shopped for clothes, attended a perfunctory court hearing and talked about his inside-out life.

He also learned how to use a motel keycard for the first time. And, pale from prison life and sinewy from pounding rocks, took a purging dive into the pool, then shrieked at the chilly water.

"I don't think about rebuilding," Krone said earlier. "I think about starting over. I have a brand-new life, brand-new dreams.. .. I don't want to be negative, vengeful or angry. I don't have time for that."

Krone was accused of killing and sexually assaulting Phoenix bartender Kim Ancona in 1991. The death sentence was based largely on testimony by a dental expert who matched bite marks on the victim with Krone's teeth. After that conviction was overturned, Krone was found guilty a second time and sentenced to life.

A few weeks ago, new DNA testing revealed that saliva on the victim's tank top belonged not to Krone, but to Kenneth Phillips, 36, who is serving prison time for an unrelated sex crime.

"They better hang onto him, hold him and charge him," Ancona's mother, Patricia Gasman, said of Phillips. "He deserves the death penalty for his pedophile cases alone."

Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley agreed to free Krone on Monday, with apologies.

Now, the 45-year-old former postal worker cannot avoid his symbolic place in the death-penalty debate any more than he could have escaped prison.

In Washington, D.C., Justice Project Executive Director Wayne Smith described the Krone case as a "shameful milestone" in America's death-penalty saga.

At the Death Penalty Information Center, also in the nation's capital, Executive Director Richard Dieter said the injustice "underscores the errors that can be made and the risks of the death penalty."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., issued a news release saying there is no way of knowing how many more Ray Krones have been sentenced to death. As sponsor of the Innocence Protection Act, which would require competent legal counsel for murder defendants and DNA testing of all convicted criminals, Leahy added, "It is past time to enact these reforms and to end this cruel game of Russian roulette."

On the other side, Dudley Sharp of Texas-based Justice for All said the list of 100 so-called "exonerated" inmates from death row is "completely made up."

"This is a political deal," Sharp added. "It's got nothing to do, in my opinion, with concern for innocent people.. .. What they want is for the media to say, 'Oh, my God, 100 innocent people?' without asking, 'Do you have any proof for these claims?' "

Meanwhile, Krone told a more personal story of how guards reacted as he was taken to death row 10 years ago: "I was something they looked at on the bottom of their shoes, that they were trying to scrape off," he said. ". .. It was a little humiliating and helpless to be in there all that time. But it gives a person strength to know you're not alone."

He said condemned inmates worry more about living in prison than leaving the world by lethal injection.

"I was on death row, and the men there had no fear of dying.. .. " he said. "The men were laughing and joking about what their last meal would be, what their last words would be."

Not at all. Actually, since the mother is dead anyway, and would have died had she been imprisoned, it's a good example of how putting away someone innocent is not something you can just take away, as you might seem to believe. It's not "reversible." Had she been punished, either by death penalty or imprisonment (and even if not), she would have been dead either way.

The point I was making was that no justice system is perfect. Thus death penalty is unacceptable. QED.

A pretty white girl dies, it's National news

A average or ugly girl of another race dies, and it's a statistic and may get a blurb on the nightly news.

Fan-tastic.

We everyone. My country's constitution outright bans the death penalty, and that part in particular (along with its section, a civil rights section) can't be removed, only added to (As in, you can't remove "there won't be death penalty", but you can add "there won't be playing Celine Dion's records over and over again for 8 hours straight as a punishment").

Where do you live? Mesopogaymia?

[Oh, no. Not 2 people.

More like 129, in your country alone, and counting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates)

Or you'll just admit that you're willing to sacrifice them as long as OTHER people die as well?

By that arguement, we need to free EVERYONE in prison, since there is a small possibility that they could be innocent. Thanks, but no thanks.

Would you accept that 5% of the people in prison are innocent? Well, 129 of 4499 (129+1107+3263) is 2.86%.

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

The death penalty and life enprisonment. The lack of both is why Brazil is a corrupt, crime ridden hellhole with 150 murders PER DAY. Some 55,000 Brazilians died of homicide in 2005 -- a few thousand more civilians than in three years of war in Iraq, according to leading estimates.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2006/09/25/brazil_murder_rate_similar_to_war_zone_data_shows/

By comparison, the US had 16,692 homicides in 2005. Or, if you prefer, a mere 30% of Brazil's rate, but with 1.58 times the population.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html

So: The Death Penalty and Life Enprisonment. Still a good idea.

Where do you live? Mesopogaymia?

Sarah Silverman, ladies and gentlemen. :rolleyes:

By that arguement, we need to free EVERYONE in prison, since there is a small possibility that they could be innocent. Thanks, but no thanks.

Would you accept that 5% of the people in prison are innocent? Well, 129 of 4499 (129+1107+3263) is 2.86%.

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

The death penalty and life enprisonment. The lack of both is why Brazil is a corrupt, crime ridden hellhole with 150 murders PER DAY. Some 55,000 Brazilians died of homicide in 2005 -- a few thousand more civilians than in three years of war in Iraq, according to leading estimates.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2006/09/25/brazil_murder_rate_similar_to_war_zone_data_shows/

By comparison, the US had 16,692 homicides in 2005. Or, if you prefer, a mere 30% of Brazil's rate, but with 1.58 times the population.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html

So: The Death Penalty and Life Enprisonment. Still a good idea.

Nope, by that argument we need punishments that can be reversed. You can free an inmate and make some sort of reparation, but go right ahead and try to raise a person back from the dead.

As for trying to flame me by calling my country a corrupt, crime-ridden hellhole, by all means, let's assume it IS. You now have to prove that it's so because it lacks death penalty. Let me give you a hint: Several countries in Africa have death penalty. Several, if not most, of them have a worse crime rate per capita than Brazil. Meanwhile Norway doesn't have death penalty and neither does Canada. Both have a smaller crime rate per capita than the US. So, even if I'm nice enough to concede the assumption that Brazil IS a crime-ridden hellhole, you still fail at conveying a decent point.

Moreover: The US is a first-world country and Brazil is a third-world country. That you try to compare them and then cite death penalty as a cause for lack of crimes in the US is laughable at best, and willfully ignorant at worse.

Unless you're actually claiming that the US is a first-world country BECAUSE it kills people in death row, in which case I'd either assume you're full of shit or assume you know of some sort of ritual sacrifice of inmates for prosperity - as if a member of a fringe church or religion were to sacrifice a chicken to win the lottery but on a larger scale.

Another reminder of why we have that so often under-valued bit in our law books about being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, the media does not, by and large, share such high-minded ideals:mad:.

In all seriousness, we need the death penalty more now than ever, and to extend it to lesser crimes. We spend far too much money on keeping unsavable monsters alive when we should be funding after school, social welfare, medical and educational programs to keep criminals from being created in the first place. We also need to cap the appeals to say, five years. Yes some innocent would be lost, but the greater good would be vastly lower crime rates and smarter, better equipped kids.

All the newspapers care about is selling papers, and let's face it, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't exactly make for a compelling story. No, the headline has to read, "PARENTS SUSPECTED IN MURDER OF CHILD". It's like an unwritten law, almost.

Sigh....the whole thing, "If it bleeds, it leads," sucks.

All the newspapers care about is selling papers, and let's face it, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't exactly make for a compelling story. No, the headline has to read, "PARENTS SUSPECTED IN MURDER OF CHILD". It's like an unwritten law, almost.

Sigh....the whole thing, "If it bleeds, it leads," sucks.

Popular media in general is absolutely pathetic. No time to cover the reasons for a war, but lots of time to drag grieving parent's names through the mud to make some money:headbang:. Sometimes I think these vultures must go out partying every time there's a high-profile murder or celebrity suicide:(.

Seriously, few things would give me more pleasure than to see such "reporters" get nailed with crippling lawsuits when there wild accusations are proven wrong. Though in the long run the freedom of speech issues might mean this would cause more harm than good.

Nope, by that argument we need punishments that can be reversed. You can free an inmate and make some sort of reparation, but go right ahead and try to raise a person back from the dead.

As for trying to flame me by calling my country a corrupt, crime-ridden hellhole, by all means, let's assume it IS. You now have to prove that it's so because it lacks death penalty. Let me give you a hint: Several countries in Africa have death penalty. Several, if not most, of them have a worse crime rate per capita than Brazil. Meanwhile Norway doesn't have death penalty and neither does Canada. Both have a smaller crime rate per capita than the US. So, even if I'm nice enough to concede the assumption that Brazil IS a crime-ridden hellhole, you still fail at conveying a decent point.

Moreover: The US is a first-world country and Brazil is a third-world country. That you try to compare them and then cite death penalty as a cause for lack of crimes in the US is laughable at best, and willfully ignorant at worse.

Unless you're actually claiming that the US is a first-world country BECAUSE it kills people in death row, in which case I'd either assume you're full of shit or assume you know of some sort of ritual sacrifice of inmates for prosperity - as if a member of a fringe church or religion were to sacrifice a chicken to win the lottery but on a larger scale.

No... by that logic, no one is ever really convicted. And there's no need to raise someone back from the dead. The number of proven innocent is inconsequental compared to the number alive and wrongfully incarcerated. It's a mixed arguement, and because of that it fails. You're arguing that because Timmy doesn't eat all his vegetables that he should be given no food at all. Absurd.

I'm not flaming Brazil, I'm calling it what it is. :D
Norway and Canada also lack... people. And... nearby unstable countries. Brazil has BOTH. So does the US. So let's not be disingenuous, eh?

And why do you suppose Brazil IS a third world (actually, second world) country? LACK OF RULE OF LAW. Just one person given the maximum (30 year) sentance? It's a sad joke.

Actually, I cite it as a reason as to how the US maintains the rule of law given its circumstance. It's one factor, along with the right of free speech, bear arms, freedom of religion, assembly, et al.

No... by that logic, no one is ever really convicted. And there's no need to raise someone back from the dead. The number of proven innocent is inconsequental compared to the number alive and wrongfully incarcerated. It's a mixed arguement, and because of that it fails. You're arguing that because Timmy doesn't eat all his vegetables that he should be given no food at all. Absurd.

I'm not flaming Brazil, I'm calling it what it is. :D
Norway and Canada also lack... people. And... nearby unstable countries. Brazil has BOTH. So does the US. So let's not be disingenuous, eh?

And why do you suppose Brazil IS a third world (actually, second world) country? LACK OF RULE OF LAW. Just one person given the maximum (30 year) sentance? It's a sad joke.

Actually, I cite it as a reason as to how the US maintains the rule of law given its circumstance. It's one factor, along with the right of free speech, bear arms, freedom of religion, assembly, et al.

Actually the US does have a somewhat unstable neighbor: Mexico. But please, for the love of God not another gun control debate;).

The point I was making was that no justice system is perfect. Thus death penalty is unacceptable. QED.

And the point you actually made, by working it into this case where not even the death penalty was relevant (prison was however) was that - no justice system is perfect. Thus imprisonment is unacceptable too. QED.

No... by that logic, no one is ever really convicted. And there's no need to raise someone back from the dead. The number of proven innocent is inconsequental compared to the number alive and wrongfully incarcerated. It's a mixed arguement, and because of that it fails. You're arguing that because Timmy doesn't eat all his vegetables that he should be given no food at all. Absurd.

I'm not flaming Brazil, I'm calling it what it is. :D
Norway and Canada also lack... people. And... nearby unstable countries. Brazil has BOTH. So does the US. So let's not be disingenuous, eh?

And why do you suppose Brazil IS a third world (actually, second world) country? LACK OF RULE OF LAW. Just one person given the maximum (30 year) sentance? It's a sad joke.

Actually, I cite it as a reason as to how the US maintains the rule of law given its circumstance. It's one factor, along with the right of free speech, bear arms, freedom of religion, assembly, et al.

Nope, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that irreversible punishments should not be applied, because they're irreversible should a miscarriage of justice occur. As for "inconsequential", I suppose you call them so until it happens to YOU.

I suppose I could call you what you are as well and not be flaming then?

Nope. You see, Iran, a third-world country, is a pretty bad police state, with very harsh penalties. The same goes for a lot of Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc. Brazil has a problem related to its colonization period - it was started as an exploitation, not a settling, colony.

And considering that states that have the death penalty have more crime than the ones that don't, I'd say rule of law is kept there DESPITE it, not BECAUSE of it.

And the point you actually made, by working it into this case where not even the death penalty was relevant (prison was however) was that - no justice system is perfect. Thus imprisonment is unacceptable too. QED.

And wrong again. Imprisonment can be reversed in case of a mistake. Death can't, unless you know a pretty fucking powerful D&D cleric.

And wrong again. Imprisonment can be reversed in case of a mistake.

Right. Unless you die in prison, as Mrs Ramsey would have, and as many people do. Even innocent ones.

Hello.

Right. Unless you die in prison, as Mrs Ramsey would have, and as many people do. Even innocent ones.

Hello.

If people die in prison it's an accident, an event that does not fall within state responsibility (unless it failed to secure that person's safety). If people are unduly KILLED in prison it's a deed, actively promoted by the government, that does fall within state responsibility.

And hi, how are you?

If people die in prison it's an accident, an event that does not fall within state responsibility (unless it failed to secure that person's safety).

The point remains that death, whether by judicial "accident" or any other "accident," is irreversible. As you yourself point out.

There would be no way to "reverse" Mrs Ramsey's hypothetical unfair sentencing, just as there is no way to "reverse" an unfair execution.

And sadly, there are plenty of violent crimes, some fatal, which occur within prison and can easily be aimed at innocents as well as guilty members in the prison population. The state generally tries to keep these incidents down (just as it tries to keep incidents of unjustly sentencing anyone who is innocent), but as you say no justice system is perfect.

If people are unduly KILLED in prison it's a deed, actively promoted by the government, that does fall within state responsibility.

I think the state is completely responsible for all things that occur within prisons. There are few examples of places and populations where the state has such scope of control and authority, for the placing and keeping of people where they are, and for their every day's activities and range of behaviors.

But that's neither here nor there, since I'm not necessarily talking about culpability, but outcome. The point is that the problem of someone who is innocent getting punished is that an innocent is being punished - not the specific form of the punishment. Capital punishment is a perfectly valid punishment for those guilty of certain crimes, as is imprisonment - and neither one is necessarily "reversible." (If punishment is truly 'reversible' it's really not so much of a punishment at all, is it?)

Both cases have unfortunately claimed innocent lives. If avoiding that was so overriding, we would do away with prisons as well. (Which might be good, now that I think of how many millions are imprisoned here in the US, and how many of those millions actually deserve it.)


And hi, how are you?

Not bad and you? :)

The point remains that death, whether by judicial "accident" or any other "accident," is irreversible. As you yourself point out.

There would be no way to "reverse" Mrs Ramsey's hypothetical unfair sentencing, just as there is no way to "reverse" an unfair execution.

And sadly, there are plenty of violent crimes, some fatal, which occur within prison and can easily be aimed at innocents as well as guilty members in the prison population. The state generally tries to keep these incidents down (just as it tries to keep incidents of unjustly sentencing anyone who is innocent), but as you say no justice system is perfect.



I think the state is completely responsible for all things that occur within prisons. There are few examples of places and populations where the state has such scope of control and authority, for the placing and keeping of people where they are, and for their every day's activities and range of behaviors.

But that's neither here nor there, since I'm not necessarily talking about culpability, but outcome. The point is that the problem of someone who is innocent getting punished is that an innocent is being punished - not the specific form of the punishment. Capital punishment is a perfectly valid punishment for those guilty of certain crimes, as is imprisonment - and neither one is necessarily "reversible." (If punishment is truly 'reversible' it's really not so much of a punishment at all, is it?)

Both cases have unfortunately claimed innocent lives. If avoiding that was so overriding, we would do away with prisons as well. (Which might be good, now that I think of how many millions are imprisoned here in the US, and how many of those millions actually deserve it.)



Not bad and you? :)

My point being that, yes, countries need a prison system, but no, the State doesn't have the right to ACTIVELY kill people that aren't, at that moment, a threat. The state is responsible for an accidental death, yes, but it's different from being responsible for an intentional one. It's like the difference between running over someone and putting two in their forehead.

And so-so. I need a job.

My point being that, yes, countries need a prison system, but no, the State doesn't have the right to ACTIVELY kill people that aren't, at that moment, a threat.

Well, if it doesn't have the right to enact one form of lawfully recognized punishment (execution), why does it have the right to enact another form of lawfully recognized punishment (imprisonment)?

I think it legally has both rights. It also has a responsibility to avoid punishing innocent people at all costs. But I don't think removing an entire form of punishment entirely is the correct response. Innocents will still get punished unfairly, and often irreversibly, so the best thing to do is to cut down on the number of bone-headed decisions. (Such as the hypothetical sentencing of Mrs Ramsey, which would be so bone-headed that it's no surprise she was never even charged. Others are not so fortunate.)

The state is responsible for an accidental death, yes, but it's different from being responsible for an intentional one. It's like the difference between running over someone and putting two in their forehead.

Well, it's more like the difference between bashing someone on the head with a mace, and shooting them twice in the forehead. In both cases you're responsible, and in both cases the result is irreversible.

The state is responsible for prison populations in their entirety - no one else is. They're as responsible as parents are for their children and should be held just as accountable, whether those children are being executed or 'merely' being incarcerated til death.

And so-so. I need a job.

I need one too. Damn capitalism! *shakes fist at the sky*

Well, if it doesn't have the right to enact one form of lawfully recognized punishment (execution), why does it have the right to enact another form of lawfully recognized punishment (imprisonment)?

I think it legally has both rights. It also has a responsibility to avoid punishing innocent people at all costs. But I don't think removing an entire form of punishment entirely is the correct response. Innocents will still get punished unfairly, and often irreversibly, so the best thing to do is to cut down on the number of bone-headed decisions. (Such as the hypothetical sentencing of Mrs Ramsey, which would be so bone-headed that it's no surprise she was never even charged. Others are not so fortunate.)



Well, it's more like the difference between bashing someone on the head with a mace, and shooting them twice in the forehead. In both cases you're responsible, and in both cases the result is irreversible.

The state is responsible for prison populations in their entirety - no one else is. They're as responsible as parents are for their children and should be held just as accountable, whether those children are being executed or 'merely' being incarcerated til death.



I need one too. Damn capitalism! *shakes fist at the sky*

Imprisonment can be reversed, and the victim can have reparations. The same can't be said about death penalty.

And the "parents" analogy works to my side as well, with the very real difference between negligent and willful harm to the kid.

Anyways, you're a respectable opponent. I must, however, go to bed now... Shall we continue this tomorrow?

No... by that logic, no one is ever really convicted. And there's no need to raise someone back from the dead. The number of proven innocent is inconsequental compared to the number alive and wrongfully incarcerated. It's a mixed arguement, and because of that it fails. You're arguing that because Timmy doesn't eat all his vegetables that he should be given no food at all. Absurd.

I'm not flaming Brazil, I'm calling it what it is. :D
Norway and Canada also lack... people. And... nearby unstable countries. Brazil has BOTH. So does the US. So let's not be disingenuous, eh?

And why do you suppose Brazil IS a third world (actually, second world) country? LACK OF RULE OF LAW. Just one person given the maximum (30 year) sentance? It's a sad joke.

Actually, I cite it as a reason as to how the US maintains the rule of law given its circumstance. It's one factor, along with the right of free speech, bear arms, freedom of religion, assembly, et al.

You'd change your argument pretty damn quick if it was you on death row for a crime you didn't do I think.

Imprisonment can be reversed, and the victim can have reparations. The same can't be said about death penalty.

And the imprisonment can often not be reversed. Death isn't exclusive to death row inmates. And time is not reversible either - I think you'd have a real say on that once you've been incarcerated for any length of time. Sure, you'd like to be let out, but even if you are, your imprisonment just didn't magically evaporate. It left an indelible, traumatic mark, one which haunts you every time you tell someone about yourself or try to get a job.

I'm just saying... have some consideration for how awful imprisonment is. It's not much better than execution and in many cases is actually worse. (Which is fine except when the prisoner is innocent.) Actually the "imprisonment is a harsher sentence" argument gets used by anti-death penalty advocates, does it not?

Anyways, you're a respectable opponent. I must, however, go to bed now... Shall we continue this tomorrow?

Sure thing. G'night!

It could have been worse.

Mike Nifong could have been the D.A.

Anything in a government document that cannot be repealed is short sighted and fascistic, but that's for another thread I suppose.

But to say that "we everyone" cannot consider a death penalty because 2 people were exonerated after 12 YEARS of trial in a case of shoddy police work?
Please. That's like saying Al Gore is a great environmentalist for his moviemaking while ignoring his house.

no

the reason to not have a death penalty, as clearly exemplified even previously in this thread, is that people cannot be trusted to decide each other's fate rationally.

even if all of the evidence is available and presented honestly, which it seldom in real life is, either one. law inforcement needs to be in a possition of having NO vested intrest in the outcome of any case, justice is not otherwise possible, under ANY system of jurisprudence.

=^^=
.../\...

And guess what. I still don't give a shit.

And the imprisonment can often not be reversed. Death isn't exclusive to death row inmates. And time is not reversible either - I think you'd have a real say on that once you've been incarcerated for any length of time. Sure, you'd like to be let out, but even if you are, your imprisonment just didn't magically evaporate. It left an indelible, traumatic mark, one which haunts you every time you tell someone about yourself or try to get a job.

I'm just saying... have some consideration for how awful imprisonment is. It's not much better than execution and in many cases is actually worse. (Which is fine except when the prisoner is innocent.) Actually the "imprisonment is a harsher sentence" argument gets used by anti-death penalty advocates, does it not?



Sure thing. G'night!

Still, the trauma of imprisonment can be alleviated with some psychological help and so on. The trauma of being dead is a tad harder to alleviate.

It could have been worse.

Mike Nifong could have been the D.A.

Oh God...worse DA North Carolina has ever had.

Oh God...worse DA North Carolina has ever had.

he has to be up for worst DA the country has ever had.

he was disbarred. did he face any criminal charges or a civil suit?

he has to be up for worst DA the country has ever had.

he was disbarred. did he face any criminal charges or a civil suit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong#Sued_by_players

Civil suit, it seems.

Plus his last name was turned into a verb... :p

[

By that arguement, we need to free EVERYONE in prison, since there is a small possibility that they could be innocent. Thanks, but no thanks.

Would you accept that 5% of the people in prison are innocent? Well, 129 of 4499 (129+1107+3263) is 2.86%.

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

The death penalty and life enprisonment. The lack of both is why Brazil is a corrupt, crime ridden hellhole with 150 murders PER DAY. Some 55,000 Brazilians died of homicide in 2005 -- a few thousand more civilians than in three years of war in Iraq, according to leading estimates.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2006/09/25/brazil_murder_rate_similar_to_war_zone_data_shows/

By comparison, the US had 16,692 homicides in 2005. Or, if you prefer, a mere 30% of Brazil's rate, but with 1.58 times the population.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html

So: The Death Penalty and Life Enprisonment. Still a good idea.
All the information you provided still fails to support your own bolded point

All the information you provided still fails to support your own bolded point

As well as his non-bolded ones.

Still, the trauma of imprisonment can be alleviated with some psychological help and so on.

Bullshit. If you imprison someone for 30 years, and then release him because you've found him innocent, it isn't fixable by any stretch of the imagination.

You've essentially taken away his life. It happens here - usually DNA clears someone held for decades.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/03/dna.exoneration.ap/index.html

Go ahead - give him back his 26 years. I'd like to see you pull that one out.

An army of psychologists couldn't give him back his life.

I think that the convicted should be given a choice in such long sentences - either wait it out, or say, "fuck it, lethally inject me because 30 years is bullshit".

Bullshit. If you imprison someone for 30 years, and then release him because you've found him innocent, it isn't fixable by any stretch of the imagination.

You've essentially taken away his life. It happens here - usually DNA clears someone held for decades.

....as opposed to literally taking his life away.

Still, the trauma of imprisonment can be alleviated with some psychological help and so on.

That is a far cry from being "reversible," which paints a happy picture of "Hey, no big deal!" It *is* a big deal, and to be honest, I think I'd rather die than try to survive a few decades of imprisonment. (I do have a strong aversion to anal rape, though.)

The trauma of being dead is a tad harder to alleviate.

Indeed. The same goes for innocent convicts who die without ever seeing justice be done. Thus, imprisonment can be just as "irreversible" as execution.

he has to be up for worst DA the country has ever had.
Hardly. There are similar, or worse, DA's all over the country, whose cases just didn't grab as much media attention.

Evidence number 298756399876345234589762938476534729876 of why we can't have the death penalty...

No one was ever convicted nor were the parents ever charged. How is the death penalty involved? I would say this is evidence of why we can't let tabloids assign blame for crimes as was done in this case.

In all seriousness, we need the death penalty more now than ever, and to extend it to lesser crimes. We spend far too much money on keeping unsavable monsters alive when we should be funding after school, social welfare, medical and educational programs to keep criminals from being created in the first place. We also need to cap the appeals to say, five years. Yes some innocent would be lost, but the greater good would be vastly lower crime rates and smarter, better equipped kids.
I'm sure you wouldn't mind being executed for simply bearing witness to someone spraying graffiti. Given that the US government currently spends +6.9% of the country's Gross Domestic Product, I'd say all that needs to be done is to divert some of that. Our country will still have enough weapons, provided that we withdraw all armed forces from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Still, the trauma of imprisonment can be alleviated with some psychological help and so on. The trauma of being dead is a tad harder to alleviate.
The "trauma" of imprisonment is hardly the biggest issue.

That is a far cry from being "reversible," which paints a happy picture of "Hey, no big deal!" It *is* a big deal, and to be honest, I think I'd rather die than try to survive a few decades of imprisonment. (I do have a strong aversion to anal rape, though.)



Indeed. The same goes for innocent convicts who die without ever seeing justice be done. Thus, imprisonment can be just as "irreversible" as execution.

Maybe, but imprisonment CAN be irreversible, and then due to circumstances not entirely within the government's control, whereas death penalty IS irreversible and IS within the government's control.

In all seriousness, we need the death penalty more now than ever, and to extend it to lesser crimes. We spend far too much money on keeping unsavable monsters alive when we should be funding after school, social welfare, medical and educational programs to keep criminals from being created in the first place. We also need to cap the appeals to say, five years. Yes some innocent would be lost, but the greater good would be vastly lower crime rates and smarter, better equipped kids.

Death penalty costs more than life in prison. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108) Please come back when you have an argument that isn't fatally flawed.

Maybe, but imprisonment CAN be irreversible, and then due to circumstances not entirely within the government's control, whereas death penalty IS irreversible and IS within the government's control.

Death penalty CAN be irreversible. Do note that not everyone sentenced to die actually is executed, while just about everyone sentenced to prison terms gets imprisoned.

And "not entirely within the government's control?" How does that work? It's government-funded, government-run, government-staffed, with government technology, government rules and regulations, and total government authority over the goings on in government property. The government is responsible, just as surely as governments are responsible for the treatment of POWs. If it's somehow "out of control" from the government, well, that's just one more reason why imprisonment should be abolished.

Death penalty CAN be irreversible. Do note that not everyone sentenced to die actually is executed, while just about everyone sentenced to prison terms gets imprisoned.

And "not entirely within the government's control?" How does that work? It's government-funded, government-run, government-staffed, with government technology, government rules and regulations, and total government authority over the goings on in government property. The government is responsible, just as surely as governments are responsible for the treatment of POWs. If it's somehow "out of control" from the government, well, that's just one more reason why imprisonment should be abolished.

Wait, are you arguing for death sentence or for abolishing prisons altogether? :confused:

Yes some innocent would be lost

And it would be all fine and dandy until said innocent happened to be YOU, yes?

Wait, are you arguing for death sentence or for abolishing prisons altogether? :confused:

Well, what I'm only doing is trying to show that your specific argument can be used in favor of abolishing prisons, just as much as it can be used to abolish the death penalty. Whether you support the former conclusion as much as you support the latter is up to you... but me, I think there are far more compelling arguments against the death penalty.

Well, what I'm only doing is trying to show that your specific argument can be used in favor of abolishing prisons, just as much as it can be used to abolish the death penalty. Whether you support the former conclusion as much as you support the latter is up to you... but me, I think there are far more compelling arguments against the death penalty.

I guess I can respect that. However, the financial arguments against death penalty are sidestepped by its proponents by them going "it would be cheaper if we did it in a less careful way"...

No one was ever convicted nor were the parents ever charged. How is the death penalty involved? I would say this is evidence of why we can't let tabloids assign blame for crimes as was done in this case.

Doesn't your constitution guarantee freedom of the press?

I guess I can respect that. However, the financial arguments against death penalty are sidestepped by its proponents by them going "it would be cheaper if we did it in a less careful way"...

Oh, the financial arguments are even less compelling IMO. But I'd prefer not to get into all that since the topic was originally Jon-Benet Ramsey's case, which one has to admit doesn't involve capital punishment.

Colorado in fact only has 3 persons on death row, and to date no such convict in CO has ever been found innocent, and it's unlikely that Mrs Ramsey would get sentenced to death even if tried and found guilty.

after 12 years of being called murderers and child molestors by the press and the american public, the DA in the jonbenet ramsey case announced today that her parents are innocent.

of course her mother died 2 years ago still under the cloud of suspicion that she had killed or covered up the killing of her child.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJvIfyM8cZ9VpBrxEO0N4FhVAN_gD91QJ8SO1

is DNA the greatest thing ever or what?

unfortunately the police assumed the parents were guilty from day 1 and have left the killer of this child to go free. now it may well be too late to ever find out who did it.
well, considering all the outside tampering that occurred at the crime scene...

No one was ever convicted nor were the parents ever charged. How is the death penalty involved? I would say this is evidence of why we can't let tabloids assign blame for crimes as was done in this case.
in this case, it wasn't the tabloids fault.

I remember this on a special they did about the murder case... so take it with a grain of salt.

things that went wrong with the investigation.

when the parents found her body, they moved her body from the basement where she was killed.
Neighbors and Friends of the family as well as other family members were called and everyone was down in the basement (crime scene) contaminating the evidence.
Police failed to secure the crime scene properly, allowing further contamination due to 'tours' being held for news crews of the crime scene
The parents re-dressed their daughter's body, casting suspicion on themselves.
Inconsistancies in both the parent's stories as well as their constantly changing stories also helped with putting them under suspicion.
The plethora of 'hacks' giving false information didn't help either.

these were only the points I remember. there were more...

so it's not just the tabloids, but everyone assisted in some way in fucking up the criminal investigation... including some of the cops themselves.

well, (.......) including some of the cops themselves.


All true. I do remember however, a "trial" conducted on TV by Geraldo with pseudo-jury etc which was particularily dubious and worthy of mention.

All true. I do remember however, a "trial" conducted on TV by Geraldo with pseudo-jury etc which was particularily dubious and worthy of mention.

A trial concerning Jon Bonet?

or was this concerning a fictitious case?

You'd change your argument pretty damn quick if it was you on death row for a crime you didn't do I think.

And so would you if you or yours was the vicitim of a heinous crime which merits the death penalty. QED.

Nope, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that irreversible punishments should not be applied, because they're irreversible should a miscarriage of justice occur. As for "inconsequential", I suppose you call them so until it happens to YOU.

I suppose I could call you what you are as well and not be flaming then?

Nope. You see, Iran, a third-world country, is a pretty bad police state, with very harsh penalties. The same goes for a lot of Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc. Brazil has a problem related to its colonization period - it was started as an exploitation, not a settling, colony.

And considering that states that have the death penalty have more crime than the ones that don't, I'd say rule of law is kept there DESPITE it, not BECAUSE of it.

Once you take away one punishment, you may as well take away them all. As I pointed out, Brazil's utter failure to have a death penalty or life enprisonment has led to the watering down of NORMAL incarceration too. ONE guy has gotten 30 years since the Constitution was brought in. ERGO this idea is a sad joke.
Are the courts perfect 100% of the time? No, probably not. But the security given to the society at large far outweighs that. And given how hard it is to actually GIVE someone the death penalty (appeals, etc... takes YEARS), it's INFINITELY more likely you'll be killed in the streets of Sao Paulo than framed for a heinous crime and subsequently killed in Des Moines.

I've seen you call America plenty all over the forums. I call Brazil something it actually IS and you call it flaming? Please. That's like complaining about someone calling Rob Halford a fag. :rolleyes:

And crime in Iran, BECAUSE it has stern penalties, is MUCH lower than in Brazil!
How long are you going to blame colonialization for your ills? If the US had done the same, it would have never emerged out of the 19th century as a world power. (Basically the Spanish-American War).
As for exploitation, that's ANY colony. That's the whole POINT of colonialism!

That's a strawman and you know it, since crime is dependent on other factors including (but not limited to) median household wealth, unemployment & concealed carry laws. For example, Connecticut has the death penalty (9 inmates on death row, 1 killed since 1976), but it is the 4th safest state in the Union due to the relatively low unemployement, higher median income and concealed carry law.

no

the reason to not have a death penalty, as clearly exemplified even previously in this thread, is that people cannot be trusted to decide each other's fate rationally.

even if all of the evidence is available and presented honestly, which it seldom in real life is, either one. law inforcement needs to be in a possition of having NO vested intrest in the outcome of any case, justice is not otherwise possible, under ANY system of jurisprudence.

=^^=
.../\...

Enjoy Utopia, it's the only place your legal ideas are actionable.

All the information you provided still fails to support your own bolded point

Only because you read it with your eyes and mind shut.

Actually the US does have a somewhat unstable neighbor: Mexico. But please, for the love of God not another gun control debate;).

Please re-read... that was my point that both Brazil and the US have unstable neighbors. :)

By comparison, the US had 16,692 homicides in 2005. Or, if you prefer, a mere 30% of Brazil's rate, but with 1.58 times the population.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html


By comparison the UK had only 4.5% of the amount of homicides in 2005/06 as the USA with 20% of the population and no death penalty.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp

Once you take away one punishment, you may as well take away them all. As I pointed out, Brazil's utter failure to have a death penalty or life enprisonment has led to the watering down of NORMAL incarceration too. ONE guy has gotten 30 years since the Constitution was brought in. ERGO this idea is a sad joke.
Are the courts perfect 100% of the time? No, probably not. But the security given to the society at large far outweighs that. And given how hard it is to actually GIVE someone the death penalty (appeals, etc... takes YEARS), it's INFINITELY more likely you'll be killed in the streets of Sao Paulo than framed for a heinous crime and subsequently killed in Des Moines.

I've seen you call America plenty all over the forums. I call Brazil something it actually IS and you call it flaming? Please. That's like complaining about someone calling Rob Halford a fag. :rolleyes:

And crime in Iran, BECAUSE it has stern penalties, is MUCH lower than in Brazil!
How long are you going to blame colonialization for your ills? If the US had done the same, it would have never emerged out of the 19th century as a world power. (Basically the Spanish-American War).
As for exploitation, that's ANY colony. That's the whole POINT of colonialism!

That's a strawman and you know it, since crime is dependent on other factors including (but not limited to) median household wealth, unemployment & concealed carry laws. For example, Connecticut has the death penalty (9 inmates on death row, 1 killed since 1976), but it is the 4th safest state in the Union due to the relatively low unemployement, higher median income and concealed carry law.

1- It doesn't work like that. Especially because many first-world countries without death penalty have prison systems that work just fine. So, no, you have no point. You're trying to establish a causal link between two things that aren't causally linkable.

2- When my country invades a hapless country, overthrows democratic regimes, destroys infrastructures and does this all for the sake of oil, feel free to say all you want. Meanwhile, I said lots of things about what America actually did. I didn't start to rant on the notion that America overthrew Allende because it has death penalty.

3- My point remains thatthe lack of death penalty is not to blame for Brazil's ills. Your attempt to make such a claim is merely posturing.

4- If you'll to claim that Brazil has more crime because it has no death penalty, I'll try to claim that some US states have more crime because they do. My spurious link is actually backed up by some research, whereas yours is not. So either you accept that you're also building a strawman or you go right ahead and let me build mine.

Enjoy Utopia, it's the only place your legal ideas are actionable.

Yeah, Utopia, Canada, Norway, Germany, the UK, Australia, Spain, Portugal, France, Brazil, Italy, just about every country in the EU, and many, MANY other countries that have no death penalty, and, thus, kill no innocents in prison.

And before you go "they're worth it, they should be proud of their sacrifice for my perceived safety", think about how you would feel if it happened to YOU.

....as opposed to literally taking his life away.

In either case, you've literally taken away something that can never, ever be restored. Ever.

In either case, you've literally taken away something that can never, ever be restored. Ever.

Okay. When you take away someone's time, you can try and make some amends by giving that person money or other things. When you take away someone's life you can't. See?

Okay. When you take away someone's time, you can try and make some amends by giving that person money or other things. When you take away someone's life you can't. See?

Tell that to someone who essentially lost most of his adult life. See?

Tell that to someone who essentially lost most of his adult life. See?

Most of his adult life < his life. And with "most of his adult life", as I said, you can try to make amends. With his life, you can't, unless you know a fairly powerful D&D Cleric. Do you?

Most of his adult life < his life. And with "most of his adult life", as I said, you can try to make amends. With his life, you can't, unless you know a fairly powerful D&D Cleric. Do you?

Remind me once again, what our current argument has to do with the OP?

Okay. When you take away someone's time, you can try and make some amends by giving that person money or other things. When you take away someone's life you can't. See?

Then again, at that point, they don't really care what you do.

Then again, at that point, they don't really care what you do.

Maybe, but they might begin to care once again after a while.

Remind me once again, what our current argument has to do with the OP?

If you want to make a new thread for this, we can...

Maybe, but they might begin to care once again after a while.

oh, shit. The death penalty can cause criminal zombies? shitshitshitshitshit...

If you want to make a new thread for this, we can...

What, yet another death penalty thread? **zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz***

oh, shit. The death penalty can cause criminal zombies? shitshitshitshitshit...

Uhm, I meant the ones who were imprisoned, not the ones who were executed.

Plus, what are they gonna do? Rob MENSA for brains?

And so would you if you or yours was the vicitim of a heinous crime which merits the death penalty. QED.

Just because you are ruled by your emotions doesn't mean everyone else is.

Just because you are ruled by your emotions doesn't mean everyone else is.

Wait, how did we determine he was ruled by his emotions (moreso than others)?

And so would you if you or yours was the vicitim of a heinous crime which merits the death penalty. QED.

Let's see, death with the off-chance of an innocent dying on my account, or watching the guy rot his life away while he keeps on suffering his fate...

You see, even with only vengeance in mind, life in prison still works better.

Okay. When you take away someone's time, you can try and make some amends by giving that person money or other things. When you take away someone's life you can't. See?
Here's a nice tangent point.

How much money or how can you make amends to someone who missed 20+ years with his family. missing things like his child's first steps, watching his children grow up and being a part of their lives, missing their proms, graduations and even weddings?

How can you make amends to things like the tearing of the family as some will still think you guilty no matter what the govenor says or marragies that fall apart due to the stress of you being in jail.

Sure the DP is permament, but even being wrongfully imprisioned will take away the person's life. the only problem is that one will still be around to miss it.

Here's a nice tangent point.

How much money or how can you make amends to someone who missed 20+ years with his family. missing things like his child's first steps, watching his children grow up and being a part of their lives, missing their proms, graduations and even weddings?

How can you make amends to things like the tearing of the family as some will still think you guilty no matter what the govenor says or marragies that fall apart due to the stress of you being in jail.

Sure the DP is permament, but even being wrongfully imprisioned will take away the person's life. the only problem is that one will still be around to miss it.

You're trying to make a case that death is a more merciful penalty? o_O

You're trying to make a case that death is a more merciful penalty? o_O

Some may prefer it to the agony of living only to remember a lifetime that was lost forever.

Some may prefer it to the agony of living only to remember a lifetime that was lost forever.

Okay. So we can agree on "give me reparations or give me death, and I get to pick between the two" for the prisoners?

Okay. So we can agree on "give me reparations or give me death, and I get to pick between the two" for the prisoners?

I think that the prisoner should be given a choice.

If they want to die right away, fine. If they want to live for a while, and try their luck with the appeals, fine. If the end up doing life in prison, and then just want to die, switch to the death penalty.

And, if they're released, and they're 70 years old, and found innocent, if they want to die because we've fucked them out of their life, then let them die.

I think that the prisoner should be given a choice.

If they want to die right away, fine. If they want to live for a while, and try their luck with the appeals, fine. If the end up doing life in prison, and then just want to die, switch to the death penalty.

And, if they're released, and they're 70 years old, and found innocent, if they want to die because we've fucked them out of their life, then let them die.

Seems reasonable, but under two conditions:

1- The family gets the money in case of innocence.

2- Any claim that the prisoner wants to die is checked out thoroughly, to avoid pseudo-legal executions.

Seems reasonable, but under two conditions:

1- The family gets the money in case of innocence.

2- Any claim that the prisoner wants to die is checked out thoroughly, to avoid pseudo-legal executions.

Sounds good to me. I'm sure that there will be some who pick death right away, others will pick life followed by death, and some will pick life followed by life (if they end up released or paroled somehow).

Sounds good to me. I'm sure that there will be some who pick death right away, others will pick life followed by death, and some will pick life followed by life (if they end up released or paroled somehow).

True enough. By the way, don't expect us agreeing too often. :p

Let's see, death with the off-chance of an innocent dying on my account, or watching the guy rot his life away while he keeps on suffering his fate...

You see, even with only vengeance in mind, life in prison still works better.

yep... he rots away with three square meals a day, excercise in a specially built yard, cable tv, access to a computer with internet access, a climate controlled room, guarenteed privacy for congical visits, free clothes, free healthcare, free education, the support of groups out there to see that his health and welfare are protected...

yep, he's suffering his fate... ;)

yep... he rots away with three square meals a day, excercise in a specially built yard, cable tv, access to a computer with internet access, a climate controlled room, guarenteed privacy for congical visits, free clothes, free healthcare, free education, the support of groups out there to see that his health and welfare are protected...

yep, he's suffering his fate... ;)

Okay, will you REALLY argue that it's good?

You're trying to make a case that death is a more merciful penalty? o_O

are you saying either is more merciful? to me, both are harsh.

both involve a removal of irriplacable things. but one is felt more by the person who loses them and the other by their suvivors.

yet those anti-DP say "we can always say 'sorry', give them money and eveything will be ok."

so to those people, how much money would it be to make the pain of the years lost go away?

are you saying either is more merciful? to me, both are harsh.

both involve a removal of irriplacable things. but one is felt more by the person who loses them and the other by their suvivors.

yet those anti-DP say "we can always say 'sorry', give them money and eveything will be ok."

so to those people, how much money would it be to make the pain of the years lost go away?

It's not "everything will be ok", it's "at least SOME reparation can be made".

Okay, will you REALLY argue that it's good?
for some... it is better than "out here". :p

Okay, will you REALLY argue that it's good?

Maybe if it involved forcing them to be homeless, I could see the whole 'wasting away' thing, but they are actually supposed to keep most of these people alive.

It's not "everything will be ok", it's "at least SOME reparation can be made".

What's to reparate(?) for when they're dead, though?

It's not "everything will be ok", it's "at least SOME reparation can be made".

same with those who are wrongfully executed. Reparations can be made to their survivors.

same with those who are wrongfully executed. Reparations can be made to their survivors.

But not to THEM, the individuals!

Heikoku Agrees *again* With Dk - Film At Eleven...

What's to reparate(?) for when they're dead, though?

Uhm, that was my point. I think you're mixing up what I say when you read my posts.

But not to THEM, the individuals!

The survivors -are- the only emotionally damaged ones involved.

Heikoku Agrees *again* With Dk - Film At Eleven...

So you're admitting to being DK?

The survivors -are- the only emotionally damaged ones involved.

In a death penalty case, yes. In a normal case, no.

Uhm, that was my point. I think you're mixing up what I say when you read my posts.

It's I subtle difference I'm having trouble explaining. But, dead people and psychologically scarred or anything, are they? You can't make it up, because, well, you can't make it up, they're dead. :/ I'm not quite sure that's clear.

So you're admitting to being DK?

You didn't know that?

You didn't know that?

Heikoku is always the last to know...

In a death penalty case, yes. In a normal case, no.

Obviously, cuz in a normal case the guy is still alive to have the problems that require compensation. Death, in and of itself, isn't all that much of an issue to dead people.

You didn't know that?

That he admitted? No.

That he admitted? No.

Not long after showing up as Hotwife...

Obviously, cuz in a normal case the guy is still alive to have the problems that require compensation. Death, in and of itself, isn't all that much of an issue to dead people.

Uhm, right. o_o

Not long after showing up as Hotwife...

Crikey.

But not to THEM, the individuals!

... to those that died? it's kinda easier actually. a simple change in public record and poof. they can be called innocent. They won't live with the stigmata of being thought guilty since they would be dead. So any reparations would go to the survivors.

... to those that died? it's kinda easier actually. a simple change in public record and poof. they can be called innocent. They won't live with the stigmata of being thought guilty since they would be dead. So any reparations would go to the survivors.

So, you're arguing in favor of death penalty because, should the guy be innocent, he'll be dead anyways? I'm not sure we understand each other. :confused:

You didn't know that?

... I didn't... :eek:

Uhm, right. o_o

Oh, sure, you're worried about it if you're alive, but you wouldn't be so pissed about being dead while being dead, would you?

So, you're arguing in favor of death penalty because, should the guy be innocent, he'll be dead anyways? I'm not sure we understand each other. :confused:

I believe we're saying that it's erroneous to say it can't be compensated for because the guy's dead anyways. and it can be compensated to the survivors.

Oh, sure, you're worried about it if you're alive, but you wouldn't be so pissed about being dead while being dead, would you?

Given the fact that we don't know what is in the other side, that I don't know. o_o

So, you're arguing in favor of death penalty because, should the guy be innocent, he'll be dead anyways? I'm not sure we understand each other. :confused:

I'm for proper and responsible use of the death penalty. unfortunatly, alot of States use it too frequently. :(

I do believe that the DP can be a proper tool if used responsibly. it shouldn't be used like a club, but a surgical scalpel.

However, my original question was more on how much value does one put on the time lost.

I'm for proper and responsible use of the death penalty. unfortunatly, alot of States use it too frequently. :(

I do believe that the DP can be a proper tool if used responsibly. it shouldn't be used like a club, but a surgical scalpel.

However, my original question was more on how much value does one put on the time lost.

I believe it should be used like a sacrificial knife: Never. And before you ask, I don't give a damn about how you'll please Quetzalcoatl. :p

As for how much value, I don't know, but it's smaller than the value of ALL time lost...

I believe it should be used like a sacrificial knife: Never. And before you ask, I don't give a damn about how you'll please Quetzacoatl. :p

As for how much value, I don't know, but it's smaller than the value of ALL time lost...

I suppose the 'how much smaller?' would vary from case to case...

I believe it should be used like a sacrificial knife: Never. And before you ask, I don't give a damn about how you'll please Quetzalcoatl. :p

As for how much value, I don't know, but it's smaller than the value of ALL time lost...

oh I agree that it should never be used as a Sacrifical Knife either. *nods*

and as for Quetxacoatl... that involves a couple of virgins, some hand woven cloth, dancing and... *cough*... going back to the OP. they mentioned they found a small DNA sample that doesn't match anyone on their database... good thing murder has no statute of limitations here.

oh I agree that it should never be used as a Sacrifical Knife either. *nods*

and as for Quetxacoatl... that involves a couple of virgins, some hand woven cloth, dancing and... *cough*... going back to the OP. they mentioned they found a small DNA sample that doesn't match anyone on their database... good thing murder has no statute of limitations here.

Er... *Just nods* :p

And I don't think murder has a statute of limitations anywhere... o_O

By comparison the UK had only 4.5% of the amount of homicides in 2005/06 as the USA with 20% of the population and no death penalty.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp

On a nice little island. I'm sure if we Pas-De-Calais'd Mexico and Canada the US would have a MUCH EASIER time keeping illegal everything out. (People, guns, drugs, fake Rolexes, etc.)

...Your link is worthless:
"We regret that we cannot answer any queries sent to this address, nor can we provide any technical support or assistance."

However, it's wrong anyway:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
USA: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Or, out of a million: 42 vs 14. That's 33%. Besides being an island, let's also bring up that the UK enjoys a lower legal migrant rate than the US (less tensions), a MUCH lower illegal migrant rate, a lower population growth rate, AND a much more homogenous population (92% White, 71% Christian)...

But thanks for proving my earlier point on Brazil & the US having troublesome neighbors and issues that don't bother Northern Europe. :)

Snip.

You're trying to argue context matters when it suits you and ignore context when it doesn't. You won't beat me like this.

1- It doesn't work like that. Especially because many first-world countries without death penalty have prison systems that work just fine. So, no, you have no point. You're trying to establish a causal link between two things that aren't causally linkable.

2- When my country invades a hapless country, overthrows democratic regimes, destroys infrastructures and does this all for the sake of oil, feel free to say all you want. Meanwhile, I said lots of things about what America actually did. I didn't start to rant on the notion that America overthrew Allende because it has death penalty.

3- My point remains thatthe lack of death penalty is not to blame for Brazil's ills. Your attempt to make such a claim is merely posturing.

4- If you'll to claim that Brazil has more crime because it has no death penalty, I'll try to claim that some US states have more crime because they do. My spurious link is actually backed up by some research, whereas yours is not. So either you accept that you're also building a strawman or you go right ahead and let me build mine.

1- It most certainly does. And if it didn't, Brazil would not be in the situation that it is in today. QED.
What "many countries"? NAME ONE as an example. Because there isn't one in the world that has large borders to defend, much less relatively lawless neighbors.
I'm not bringing up "casual links", I'm supporting and entire proposition that you find anathema. If you don't like it, fine, but to say it's invalid out of hand? :rolleyes:

2-Iraq. YAWN. UN sanctioned and approved, which has been debated to death on this forum and probably a thousand others for 5 years. Guess what? It doesn't change a thing. When Brazil actually goes out and HELPS people like the US did during the Tsunami or sends troops to stop a genocide in Haiti, then feel free to talk. We may not always be right, but at least we DO something.

3- That made little sense: I'm pointing out that since Brazil has no real law enforcement that it has high criminal activity. And it does. You're saying that it's not the case. If that were true then Brazil wouldn't have a high crime rate. As with point 1, you're ignoring simple logic.

4- Right. And I've proved that there are states that HAVE it and have less. The point being that the death penalty is only ONE tool among many as to why the US has a lower crime rate than Brazil.
The main point here being of course that Brazil lacks a death penalty, life enprisonment, and even real sentancing. Which feeds back to the 1st point of yes, it does work that way. :)
As for building a strawman: what research do you want? I pointed out FACTS about the state of Connecticut, and factors that cause crime. You're the one trying to say that the death penalty is the ONLY factor in preventing crime, which I'm not only disputing, but did so with data.

Yeah, Utopia, Canada, Norway, Germany, the UK, Australia, Spain, Portugal, France, Brazil, Italy, just about every country in the EU, and many, MANY other countries that have no death penalty, and, thus, kill no innocents in prison.

And before you go "they're worth it, they should be proud of their sacrifice for my perceived safety", think about how you would feel if it happened to YOU.

Canada- No one lives there, no unstable neighbors.
Norway- No one lives there, no unstable neighbors.
Germany- Last execution in 1981 in East Germany (a predecessor state). However, since this Germany has only been around since 1994, it's really not much of a talking point. If you want to go historical, they had almost all of NATO running around with guns for decades. That sort of presence lowers crime, eh?
UK- ISLAND (easy to police), no unstable neighbors.
Australia - No one lives there, no unstable neighbors.
Italy, Spain & Portugal- Have the highest crime rates in Western Europe.
Brazil - Some unstable borders, a bordello of crime.

They may kill no innocents in prison, but they sure as hell die on the street! Just like that shithead that killed Theo van Gogh won't be killed. :rolleyes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm
...though at least HE (Mohammed Bouyeri) got a life sentance. In Brazil I bet he'd serve what, 5-10 years?

Just because you are ruled by your emotions doesn't mean everyone else is.

Just because you are ruled by your emotions doesn't mean everyone else is either.

Let's see, death with the off-chance of an innocent dying on my account, or watching the guy rot his life away while he keeps on suffering his fate...

You see, even with only vengeance in mind, life in prison still works better.

...which Brazil doesn't have. WAKE UP!

1- It most certainly does. And if it didn't, Brazil would not be in the situation that it is in today. QED.
What "many countries"? NAME ONE as an example. Because there isn't one in the world that has large borders to defend, much less relatively lawless neighbors.
I'm not bringing up "casual links", I'm supporting and entire proposition that you find anathema. If you don't like it, fine, but to say it's invalid out of hand? :rolleyes:

2-Iraq. YAWN. UN sanctioned and approved, which has been debated to death on this forum and probably a thousand others for 5 years. Guess what? It doesn't change a thing. When Brazil actually goes out and HELPS people like the US did during the Tsunami or sends troops to stop a genocide in Haiti, then feel free to talk. We may not always be right, but at least we DO something.

3- That made little sense: I'm pointing out that since Brazil has no real law enforcement that it has high criminal activity. And it does. You're saying that it's not the case. If that were true then Brazil wouldn't have a high crime rate. As with point 1, you're ignoring simple logic.

4- Right. And I've proved that there are states that HAVE it and have less. The point being that the death penalty is only ONE tool among many as to why the US has a lower crime rate than Brazil.
The main point here being of course that Brazil lacks a death penalty, life enprisonment, and even real sentancing. Which feeds back to the 1st point of yes, it does work that way. :)
As for building a strawman: what research do you want? I pointed out FACTS about the state of Connecticut, and factors that cause crime. You're the one trying to say that the death penalty is the ONLY factor in preventing crime, which I'm not only disputing, but did so with data.

1- If Brazil had death penalty, it would be in a worse situation than it is. See, I can also make what-if statements I can't prove. Death penalty has squat to do with open borders or lawless neighbors. Turkey is a fairly big country, borders Iraq, among other neighbors of doubtful stability, has the Kurd issue, and goes by fine without death penalty.

2- For one example, Haiti. Brazil also never sponsored a coup in other countries. So, yeah, I would rate our actions in the international scenery ahead of yours.

3- You're arguing that Brazil doesn't have law enforcement because it doesn't have death penalty. That's bullshit, as can be attested by the fact that Somalia HAS death penalty, and it's just about the most lawless place on Earth.

4- The US has a smaller crime rate than Brazil DESPITE death penalty, not BECAUSE of it. And if the US had the same history as Brazil - including but not limited to a sponsored-from-abroad coup d'etat - I'm pretty sure you'd be faring way worse, given that any moron can buy a gun there.

Wait, how did we determine he was ruled by his emotions (moreso than others)?

Oh, it's just the usual of ganging up on the guy whose opinion you don't like. Happens in every thread. I hear CthulhuFhtagn picks his nose, too. ;)

(As you can see, petty attacks like that just make this the 4th grade all over again...)

...which Brazil doesn't have. WAKE UP!

Did I ever argue against life in prison here? No? Then you'll have to pick between arguing with me or arguing with your delusions.

Did I ever argue against life in prison here? No? Then you'll have to pick between arguing with me or arguing with your delusions.

You were the one that pointed out that Brazil's Constitution banned the death penalty and life enprisonment. So... yes, you did.

Canada- No one lives there, no unstable neighbors.
Norway- No one lives there, no unstable neighbors.
Germany- Last execution in 1981 in East Germany (a predecessor state). However, since this Germany has only been around since 1994, it's really not much of a talking point. If you want to go historical, they had almost all of NATO running around with guns for decades. That sort of presence lowers crime, eh?
UK- ISLAND (easy to police), no unstable neighbors.
Australia - No one lives there, no unstable neighbors.
Italy, Spain & Portugal- Have the highest crime rates in Western Europe.
Brazil - Some unstable borders, a bordello of crime.

They may kill no innocents in prison, but they sure as hell die on the street! Just like that shithead that killed Theo van Gogh won't be killed. :rolleyes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm
...though at least HE (Mohammed Bouyeri) got a life sentance. In Brazil I bet he'd serve what, 5-10 years?

1- Still places with systems that work fine without death penalty, which you want to ignore because you want governments to become as arrogant in deciding who lives and who dies as you.

2- I'd say about 25, 30. Minimum sentence for murder here is 12 years. But if you feel making an ass out of yourself by flaming my country due to me arguing against a barbaric practice that you favor, who am I to stop you.

3- Killing innocents in prison does not prevent other innocents on the streets from getting killed.

You were the one that pointed out that Brazil's Constitution banned the death penalty and life enprisonment. So... yes, you did.

Nope. I ARGUED AGAINST death penalty. I POINTED OUT that our Constitution bans life imprisonment.

See, I can point out our Constitution says something without agreeing with it. Do you want me to try and de-complicate that for you?

1- If Brazil had death penalty, it would be in a worse situation than it is. See, I can also make what-if statements I can't prove. Death penalty has squat to do with open borders or lawless neighbors. Turkey is a fairly big country, borders Iraq, among other neighbors of doubtful stability, has the Kurd issue, and goes by fine without death penalty.

2- For one example, Haiti. Brazil also never sponsored a coup in other countries. So, yeah, I would rate our actions in the international scenery ahead of yours.

3- You're arguing that Brazil doesn't have law enforcement because it doesn't have death penalty. That's bullshit, as can be attested by the fact that Somalia HAS death penalty, and it's just about the most lawless place on Earth.

4- The US has a smaller crime rate than Brazil DESPITE death penalty, not BECAUSE of it. And if the US had the same history as Brazil - including but not limited to a sponsored-from-abroad coup d'etat - I'm pretty sure you'd be faring way worse, given that any moron can buy a gun there.

1- Feeble. At best.

2- And? We're talking crime I thought, not International Politics? Or can you not keep to one topic?

3- No, that's not what I said. I said Brazil doesn't have a death penalty, life imprisonment OR real sentancing, THEREFORE it has no law enforcement. Please re-read. My position, as stated for a LONG TIME now, is that the death penalty is just ONE tool Brazil should use to combat crime.
Somalia technically hasn't had a government for 15 years or so... nevermind the other factors of almost zero standard of living, troublesome neighbors, high unemployment, etc.

4- You mean, it didn't?
Oh, that's right, Brazil didn't rebel against its colonial rulers until the founding of Republic of the United States of Brazil. Hmm. Good thing we didn't have the exact same history, although some of the colonization aspects were similar.

1- Feeble. At best.

2- And? We're talking crime I thought, not International Politics? Or can you not keep to one topic?

3- No, that's not what I said. I said Brazil doesn't have a death penalty, life imprisonment OR real sentancing, THEREFORE it has no law enforcement. Please re-read. My position, as stated for a LONG TIME now, is that the death penalty is just ONE tool Brazil should use to combat crime.
Somalia technically hasn't had a government for 15 years or so... nevermind the other factors of almost zero standard of living, troublesome neighbors, high unemployment, etc.

4- You mean, it didn't?
Oh, that's right, Brazil didn't rebel against its colonial rulers until the founding of Republic of the United States of Brazil. Hmm. Good thing we didn't have the exact same history, although some of the colonization aspects were similar.

1- The fact remains that death penalty has nothing to do with stability or lack thereof.

2- Who started the country-slinging again?

3- Oh, so you're now very well-versed in law to define what's real sentencing and what isn't? I'm arguing against death penalty, not against life in prison.

4- No, the US didn't have the same story as Brazil. Heck, our independence was essentially granted by Napoleon's army. A fact which made us more passive (bad) but also less militaristic (good).

1- Still places with systems that work fine without death penalty, which you want to ignore because you want governments to become as arrogant in deciding who lives and who dies as you.

2- I'd say about 25, 30. Minimum sentence for murder here is 12 years. But if you feel making an ass out of yourself by flaming my country due to me arguing against a barbaric practice that you favor, who am I to stop you.

3- Killing innocents in prison does not prevent other innocents on the streets from getting killed.

1- Sure. There are also places that work fine with prohibition of alcohol. Doesn't mean it's a good fit everywhere though.
Why you think I want to ignore that there CAN be places without a death penalty is beyond me. Every country is different, but choosing rich countries with low levels of crime and easily defended borders with no difficult neighbors is simply NOT the situation that the US or Brazil face.

2- Yawn.

3- And having a weak legal system is no way to ensure the safety of the populace.

*** What you seem to be missing, or just (hmm... ignoring?) is the idea of USE. The Death Penalty shoud only be used in the most extreme cases, where someone has done something so heinous that they deserve to die.
Mohammed Bouyeri deserves to die. John Allen Muhammad deserves to die. Ted Bundy deserved to die. Michael Bruce Ross deserved to die.
... that's not to say that even 1% of 1% of people SHOULD be put to death.

1- The fact remains that death penalty has nothing to do with stability or lack thereof.

2- Who started the country-slinging again?

3- Oh, so you're now very well-versed in law to define what's real sentencing and what isn't? I'm arguing against death penalty, not against life in prison.

4- No, the US didn't have the same story as Brazil. Heck, our independence was essentially granted by Napoleon's army. A fact which made us more passive (bad) but also less militaristic (good).

1- The fact remains that death penalty CAN BE A tool for stability or lack thereof.

2- Anything in a government document that cannot be repealed is short sighted and fascistic, but that's for another thread I suppose. : me, post #15. And I still hold this opinion.

3- If a whole country has only had 1 guy given a 30 year sentance and has rampant crime, who needs to be an expert? PLEASE. It's as simple a correlation as "the US is spending too much money, the dollar is getting weak."
As I recall, you used this line of reasoning in a Constitutional debate awhile back. :rolleyes:
And you've only VERY recently in the thread started talking about life imprisonment, but then you're going against your Constitution.

4- More or less, yeah.

Nope. I ARGUED AGAINST death penalty. I POINTED OUT that our Constitution bans life imprisonment.

See, I can point out our Constitution says something without agreeing with it. Do you want me to try and de-complicate that for you?

You could also have said that your not against life imprisonment several pages ago and saved on a quite a lot of debate.

You could also have said that your not against life imprisonment several pages ago and saved on a quite a lot of debate.

But then it would be no fun, now wouldn't it?

1- Sure. There are also places that work fine with prohibition of alcohol. Doesn't mean it's a good fit everywhere though.
Why you think I want to ignore that there CAN be places without a death penalty is beyond me. Every country is different, but choosing rich countries with low levels of crime and easily defended borders with no difficult neighbors is simply NOT the situation that the US or Brazil face.

2- Yawn.

3- And having a weak legal system is no way to ensure the safety of the populace.

*** What you seem to be missing, or just (hmm... ignoring?) is the idea of USE. The Death Penalty shoud only be used in the most extreme cases, where someone has done something so heinous that they deserve to die.
Mohammed Bouyeri deserves to die. John Allen Muhammad deserves to die. Ted Bundy deserved to die. Michael Bruce Ross deserved to die.
... that's not to say that even 1% of 1% of people SHOULD be put to death.

1- The borders mean nothing. And quite frankly, the crime levels don't mean anything either. For you to deal with crime levels, you have to deal with the origins of crime.

2- That's your opinion as a legal expert? :rolleyes:

3- It's weak because you call it so? Heh.

And no, Death Penalty SHOULD NOT be used in extreme cases, because, then, you have an innocent get it, and the people who convicted him are now to blame for getting someone jailed and then killed. What do you do then, kill these people too? Or have the government raise the innocent man from the dead? Perhaps you could do both, sacrifice the judge, jury and executioners to a god in an attempt to obtain a resurrection? Mmm?

1- The fact remains that death penalty CAN BE A tool for stability or lack thereof.

2- Anything in a government document that cannot be repealed is short sighted and fascistic, but that's for another thread I suppose. : me, post #15. And I still hold this opinion.

3- If a whole country has only had 1 guy given a 30 year sentance and has rampant crime, who needs to be an expert? PLEASE. It's as simple a correlation as "the US is spending too much money, the dollar is getting weak."
As I recall, you used this line of reasoning in a Constitutional debate awhile back. :rolleyes:
And you've only VERY recently in the thread started talking about life imprisonment, but then you're going against your Constitution.

4- More or less, yeah.

1- Show me a case of stability generated by death penalty and I'll show you two where it wasn't.

2- Even making an ammendment similar to your 1st permanent? Wow. :rolleyes:

3- Or you could realize that it's not about having harsher penalties, it's about having a system that WORKS, harsh penalties or not. But feel free to keep the shrill correlation-is-causation blabbering. As for going against my Constitution, if Bush does it with yours, so can I.

1- Show me a case of stability generated by death penalty and I'll show you two where it wasn't.

2- Even making an ammendment similar to your 1st permanent? Wow. :rolleyes:

3- Or you could realize that it's not about having harsher penalties, it's about having a system that WORKS, harsh penalties or not. But feel free to keep the shrill correlation-is-causation blabbering. As for going against my Constitution, if Bush does it with yours, so can I.

1- No, you can't. Not unless you're going to compare Norway and Canada against Somalia or somesuch.

2- The 1st Amendment is no more important or special than the 2nd, the 5th, or ANY other Amendment. That you think otherwise is interesting, and a little bit silly. ALL RIGHTS are important.

3- Yes, and Brazil's system of no death penalty, no life imprisonment, and no real sentancing clearly does NOT work.
Oh great, another tangent. However, it's another empty phrase: if Bush *did* go counter to the Constitution, don't you think they'd have nailed him after 7.5 years in office? :rolleyes:

1- The borders mean nothing. And quite frankly, the crime levels don't mean anything either. For you to deal with crime levels, you have to deal with the origins of crime.

2- That's your opinion as a legal expert? :rolleyes:

3- It's weak because you call it so? Heh.

And no, Death Penalty SHOULD NOT be used in extreme cases, because, then, you have an innocent get it, and the people who convicted him are now to blame for getting someone jailed and then killed. What do you do then, kill these people too? Or have the government raise the innocent man from the dead? Perhaps you could do both, sacrifice the judge, jury and executioners to a god in an attempt to obtain a resurrection? Mmm?

1- Uh huh... so you're saying that issues like the War on Drugs, illegal immigration, weapons smuggling et al aren't all major SOURCES of crime? You don't think that the US money and weapons that go South don't make Mexico more dangerous, and that the drugs and criminals that come into the US don't make more crime?
(IMO the whole War on Drugs is stupid, but since it's being waged we have the effects to deal with).
So borders clearly matter. And that's a huge job as is CLEARLY seen with both the US and Brazil.

2- Yep. 12 (minimum) years for MURDER? And you call that law enforcement? Yawn.

3- DUDE! It's weak because the crime levels are so high in Brazil! WTF?!?! :shock:

I've debated that for pages, you're clearly either not reading what I'm posting or just don't understand.

Goodbye, wall.