• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the Death Penalty is a Good Thing

And, we get it wrong... A lot... When DNA evidence came out for example, they found that roughly 1 in 10 of the people on death row for whom there was still DNA-bearing material still on file turned out to be innocent. They didn't just turn out to find some flaw in the proof beyond a reasonable doubt mind you, but the DNA evidence actually proved them innocent.

Not only that, the Supreme Court has made rulings limiting the number of re-trials and appeals that can be done because of DNA evidence. They say that unless there are limits, too many people would seek too many appeals and would lead to too much cost and burden on the state.

So while prosecutors are allowed to go after 50-year-old cases because of DNA evidence, those who are wrongfully convicted may not be allowed to get justice in a fair re-trial in which DNA evidence may acquit them.
 
Not only that, the Supreme Court has made rulings limiting the number of re-trials and appeals that can be done because of DNA evidence. They say that unless there are limits, too many people would seek too many appeals and would lead to too much cost and burden on the state.

So while prosecutors are allowed to go after 50-year-old cases because of DNA evidence, those who are wrongfully convicted may not be allowed to get justice in a fair re-trial in which DNA evidence may acquit them.


I've been told by people involved in DNA forensics that the whole "old case DNA evidence proving innocence" thing has been overhyped. In many of these old cases, convictions are being overturned because physical samples were not stored properly and can no longer be correctly analyzed for DNA identification. Back before DNA identification, tissue and blood samples were often stored in a haphazard manner resulting in decay of the sample, making ID impossible.

So the whole "lots of people on death row are being exhonorated by DNA evidence" thing is probably overhyped. Apparently some of these exhonorations are happening simply because the physical samples had decayed and could not be positively ID'd to anyone. That doesn't prove someone's innocence.
 
Okay, so are you in turn suggesting that execution is a convenience because we are lazy in enforcing supervision and quality control of prison guards?

You know, I never suggested or implied anything remotely like that; the above is your oddball assumption from waaay the hell out in left field, and guess what? It's wrong. :doh

If you want to know what I actually think about some specific thing, why don't you just ask?

Last time I checked, inmates who commit secondary crimes while incarcerated tend to end up in solitary confinement or are transferred to facilities for long term isolation. There is already a mechanism for dealing with these high risk criminals and they are generally segregated from the rest of the inmate population.

And yet, criminal activity, violent assaults, and murders are committed in supermax prisons. Far more often than would seem possible, but facts are facts. A few examples:

Opened in 1963, Marion became the United States' highest security prison by 1978. Marion was one of two supermax prisons in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the other being ADX Florence in Colorado. The prison was originally constructed to hold 500 inmates.

On October 22, 1983, two prison guards, Merle E. Clutts and Robert L. Hoffman, were killed in separate incidents, both at the hands of Aryan Brotherhood members. Clutts was stabbed by Thomas Silverstein. The prison was, at the time, the holding place for the Federal Bureau of Prisons' most dangerous prisoners. Despite this, two inmates were able independently to kill their accompanying guards. – United States Penitentiary, Marion

On October 28, 1987, Gardner broke a glass partition in a prison visiting area [at Utah state's supermax prison] and had sex with a female visitor while other inmates barricaded the doors. On September 25, 1994, he got drunk from alcohol he fermented in his own prison cell sink and stabbed another inmate with a shiv fashioned from a pair of sunglasses. Gardner was charged with another capital crime for the stabbing under a Utah law reserved for prison attacks, but the case was thrown out by the Utah Supreme Court because the victim did not die. –Ronnie Lee Gardner

Inmate is fatally stabbed in altercation in state's `Supermax' prison complex

June 10, 2000
An inmate in Maryland's most secure prison, known as "Supermax," was fatally stabbed six times in the chest early yesterday during an altercation in an indoor recreation area, state police said.

Michael Allen, 20, who was serving five years for attempted murder, was pronounced dead at 10:40 a.m. in the prison infirmary. The attack occurred about 10:15 a.m. inside the downtown complex on East Madison Street, where 309 inmates are held in isolated cells.

As recently as 2003, a study of violence in supermax prisons was undertaken, and the results found that supermaxes had no impact on the rates of inmate-on-inmate violence, and inconclusive impact on the safety of prison staff.

If the worst of the worst are removed from the general prison population and put in isolation, you’d expect there to be markedly fewer inmate shankings and attacks on corrections officers. But the evidence doesn’t bear this out. Perhaps the most careful inquiry [Briggs et al., “The Effect of Supermaximum Security Prisons,”1341] into whether supermax prisons decrease violence and disorder was a 2003 analysis examining the experience in three states—Arizona, Illinois, and Minnesota—following the opening of their supermax prisons. The study found that levels of inmate-on-inmate violence were unchanged, and that levels of inmate-on-staff violence changed unpredictably, rising in Arizona, falling in Illinois, and holding steady in Minnesota. – Torture In Your Own Backyard

It's the unsolved murders that implicate corruption of the prison system...

Why would an unsolved prison murder = prison system corruption? Is it possible that inmate collusion/corruption might be a reason at least some of these cases to go unsolved, or do you believe it is always a matter of corruption among prison guards and staff?

when guards get paid off to turn a blind eye while murders and rapes take place.

Do you have any documentation on how often guards are supposedly "paid off to turn a blind eye while murders and rapes take place?" By whom they are paid and where does the money comes from? How much they are paid? What sort of verifiable evidence has been offered in such cases? How many investigations into this sort of event have resulted in arrests? Have there been a significant number of such incidents successfully brought to trial? Can you give us the names of the corrupt prison guards that have been successfully prosecuted and deemed guilty? I'd be very interested to see your published research and documented data on this topic.

Do you suppose that, in every case of prison murder or prison rape, a guard was paid to look the other way, or could there possibly be other explanations for some of these prison murders/rapes?

Who are you to decide who does and doesn't deserve a second chance? You aren't God.

That's right, I'm not. And neither are you. ;) This is a debate board where people discuss issues and offer opinions on those issues. I've offered some of my opinions, and provided documentation to support them. Can you do the same?

Think about what Christ himself would say.

As soon as Christ starts posting here, we can ask him. Until then, Christ, the mythical stories written about him, and what his many biographers claim he would say are utterly irrelevant.

I only brought it up because there are Christians who are pro-death penalty and it seems contradictory to me.

Once again, I'm not a Christian. I'm a slightly liberal atheist that owns a gun and strongly supports the death penalty. Try to figure that one out!
 
I've been told by people involved in DNA forensics that the whole "old case DNA evidence proving innocence" thing has been overhyped. In many of these old cases, convictions are being overturned because physical samples were not stored properly and can no longer be correctly analyzed for DNA identification. Back before DNA identification, tissue and blood samples were often stored in a haphazard manner resulting in decay of the sample, making ID impossible.

So the whole "lots of people on death row are being exhonorated by DNA evidence" thing is probably overhyped. Apparently some of these exhonorations are happening simply because the physical samples had decayed and could not be positively ID'd to anyone. That doesn't prove someone's innocence.

When someone's life is on the line who could be innocent of a crime that he's been convicted and of and could be executed for, I don't care.
 
When someone's life is on the line who could be innocent of a crime that he's been convicted and of and could be executed for, I don't care.

What if other, non-DNA evidence, proves him guilty beyond the juror's reasonable doubt, while the DNA evidence is inconclusive?
 
What if other, non-DNA evidence, proves him guilty beyond the juror's reasonable doubt, while the DNA evidence is inconclusive?

I still don't favor the death penalty for any reason whatsoever.
 
The death penalty ends up being applied absurdly. Black people convicted of murder are like 10 times more likely to be given the death penalty than white people, people with low IQs are about 20 times more likely to get it... You can't put an exact number on such a subjective thing, but basically less charismatic people, people who don't know how to appear contrite, etc, get it far more easily. If you draw one judge you won't get it no matter what, if you draw the next judge you'll get it at the drop of a hat. It just isn't reasonably applied.

I believe there may something to what you say, but I'd like to see more research and documentation to prove that race or IQ are significant factors in death penalty conviction rates. I'm certain there are plenty of minorities and persons with low IQs that are actually guilty and deserving of a death penalty sentence for their crimes, and I'm not convinced that prejudice in our justice system is the sole, or even the most common, reason for death penalty convictions of minorities and persons with low IQs.

In fact, and there are several studies that back this up. You can see a brief review of seven such studies at RACE: A Death Penalty Primer - No Bias in Death Penalty Sentencing.

And, we get it wrong... A lot... When DNA evidence came out for example, they found that roughly 1 in 10 of the people on death row for whom there was still DNA-bearing material still on file turned out to be innocent. They didn't just turn out to find some flaw in the proof beyond a reasonable doubt mind you, but the DNA evidence actually proved them innocent.

True, we do get things wrong from time to time; I don't think there's any way to completely eliminate mistakes or errors in judgment where human beings are concerned (not an excuse, just a fact). But a great deal has changed in the 25 years since the advent of using DNA to "fingerprint" a criminal – we've seen dramatic advances in medical science, in the science of DNA profiling, and in the collection and use of DNA evidence in our judicial and criminal systems. Today, we are able to collect, document, and preserve DNA evidence far more often with far more accurate results, meaning fewer incorrect convictions. In addition, The Innocence Project and similar groups work hard to ensure that, in crimes committed prior to 1985 (first use of DNA evidence in a trial) where blood/semen/etc. evidence was available but DNA fingerprinting was not, those who can be proven innocent, are.

And, it actually costs us more to put somebody to death than to lock them up for life.

Absolutely true, but this is not a result of the actual costs associated with the execution itself. It is, rather, a direct result of our extremely liberal appeals process and the costs of incarceration while appealing. Currently, the appeals process may, and often does, last several decades. I advocate we limit the death penalty appeals process to five appeals and/or five years – whichever comes first. Justice delayed is justice denied.
 
Last edited:
I still don't favor the death penalty for any reason whatsoever.

Then is there really any point in considering your view regarding DNA evidence vs other-than-DNA evidence in determining capital punishment? Not to be a smart ass, but since you're against it under all circumstances...
 
Then is there really any point in considering your view regarding DNA evidence vs other-than-DNA evidence in determining capital punishment? Not to be a smart ass, but since you're against it under all circumstances...

But this thread isn't about DNA evidence vs. othr-than-DNA evidence in determining capital punishment. Not to be a smart ass, but it's about whether or not the death penalty is a good thing. :tongue4:
 
But this thread isn't about DNA evidence vs. othr-than-DNA evidence in determining capital punishment. Not to be a smart ass, but it's about whether or not the death penalty is a good thing. :tongue4:

Context, my friend, context. Convictions being overturned due to DNA evidence, or in many cases simply a lack of DNA evidence, was the discussion of the moment.

But we'll put you down for a "no" then. :mrgreen:
 
Oh, OK. Because you said so... I understand and completely agree with you now. Thanks! :)

No, because by devaluing the criminal's life and executing them, you have not shown in any way shape or form the high value of human life. You're the one sitting around with the "because I said so" argument. You've offered nothing to accout for the high value of human life by devaluing a criminal's life and killing him. You've offered zero explaination other than emotional outbursts when one dare say that it doesn't follow logically. And it doesn't. No matter how much you want it to be true, how much you dream and wish; you've provided squat which demonstrates that the innate high value of human life is affirmed through the devaluing of a criminal's life and his subsequent death. Nothing. Not one single bit. So you can try to be smarmy as much as you want. You can pretend you got a good dig in there. But YOU have been completely unable to use logical argument to show how the affirmation of high value to human life is confirmed through the use of the death penalty. So bitch and bitch and bitch, but it doesn't mean anything.
 
It is not excessively punishing them for a possible crime that they may commit in the future, it is punishing them for the crime that they just committed.

No, not when you say "that person won't commit another murder". That's reasoning against future crimes. You cannot use that as excuse for current capital punishment. And you did use it. People may get out of jail, they may even murder again. That "may" is not proper enough argument for the death penalty.
 
his emotional and logical reasons can end up with the same response. Nothing illogical about it Ikari.
The one looking the fool is the one that insists that they are right because they say so...

Again you're wrong. That post which was specifically referred to was one of emotion and not logic. It was about "feeling good about themselves". Oh, having the guy killed brought sense of closure. That's emotional response, it's easy to see for anyone not personally connected to the argument (i.e. intellectually dishonest folk trying to push their ideals and opinions thus they'll champion any argument which has the same outcome as their argument even without thinking or using logic to come up with it). The justice department is not here to bring you closure. That's your own damned problem. The justice department hands out judgments for punishments against the individuals but must remain within the rights and liberties of the individual. That's why there are a large number of protections for the defendant built in. Upon finding a person guilty, their duty is not to you feeling good, or obtaining closure, or putting your mind at ease, or any of that. Those can never be used as proper argument for government power and proper procedure. They must rule by the powers the government possesses, weighted by the crime which was committed and which was brought before that specific court.

So yes, you are wrong yet again. It was an emotionalized argument used to excuse the death penalty on nothing more than personal feelings, which also means that it was not logically supported. You wanna give it one more go? Your track record here is horrendous.
 
I've been through a death penalty case, two of them actually, from arrest and first trial through innumerable appeals, to final execution 11 and 15 years after the crime, respectively.

There are so many opportunities for someone facing capital punishment to present mitigating evidence or technical faults in his trial that I suspect "wrongful executions" are probably not as common as many people think.

Given that prison sentences do not invoke all the automatic reviews and appeals that capital punishment does, I expect we've put MANY MORE people in prison for long terms wrongfully, than cap-punishment.

Illinois put a moratorium on their death penalty awhile ago because innocent people keep finding their way on death row. I think it was something close to half the people there were not guilty of the crime they were convicted of being guilty of. Now it really depends with the death penalty as to the standards. Texas has an innocent man on death row, the governor tried to kick up the execution to cover the fact. Remember that? Colorado now doesn't really have many people on death row. In order to get the death penalty in Colorado, the burdens upon the prosecutor are HUGE. If you're going to have a death penalty, I prefer we do it that way.
 
Too bad for you I purposely did not quote the "emotional" portion of Goshin's post, and agreed with the portion I did quote as clearly seen here.

Please stop lying about this; it's all there for the entire board to see. Pretending I included Goshin's "emotional" comments and then agreed with them is your psychosis; too bad the facts do not back up your easily disproved assertion.

So you're admitting that you tried to lie and purposefully pretended that you were talking about Bodi's comments when it was clearly not. Good. Also, you quoted most of the post, including the emotional appeal which included the portion of the quote that you bolded and said you agreed with. Thanks for admitting you lied about it though.

Too bad for you that Bodhi's comments, with which I agree, contain no appeal to emotion and are based on simple, factual reality. Bodhi's comments are there for the entire board to see. Pretending he's said something other than he did just makes you look even more ignorant and foolish than before.

How about trying a bit of the ol' intellectual honesty when answering posts instead of making things up, hmmm?

:2wave:

Other pertinent facts you've failed to address (failed to even consider, apparently) include:

  • the murder/assault rate inside US prisons (convicted murderers DO murder again, often within prison walls; dead ones don't)
  • the number of convicted murderers that escape (yes, even from death row; dead ones don't)
  • paroled murderer recidivism rates (it's 30% in my state; how about yours? The recidivism rate for executed murderers = 0)
  • the ability for even those in supermax prisons to have murders/assaults/illegal activities undertaken in their behalf both inside and outside prison walls (this ability disappears when a murderer is executed, as do the crimes they commit while lounging in their cells, enjoying all the basic creature comforts that I pay for)

But all of those easily documented facts would be too damaging to your hilarious, invented argument that my support for the death penalty is based on "emotions," so it's best to pretend they don't exist in your foolishly simple, strictly black and white world, and just keep calling me a liar, right?

:roll:

Too bad we aren't talking about Bodi's comments, as you already admitted to that farce. Additionally, Bodi's OP has within it the propaganda fallacy that using the death penalty is an affirmation of the high value of human life. A propaganda fallacy distinctively false and misleading. Try again, this time try being intellectually honest. You'll find you'll be able to construct better arguments with honesty than through lies, hyperbole, and misdirect.
 
The argument that preserving the death penalty shows that we value life has to be one of the most ironic arguments I think I've heard.

I don't care if all of the evidence lines up against a murderer and we know with 100% certainty that he/she did it. I do not support state murder.

Of course people who commit murder must take the consequences because that's the law, but but whether they are morally responsible or not is another thing. Nobody murders by free choice. It's the bad luck of being at the wrong place at the wrong time, wrong peers, wrong experience, and wrong situation.

Very few survive the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes...

ricksfolly
 
... your perceptions of reality leave much to be desired.
I dont think a Christian is somebody who can reasonably comment on perception of reality.
 
Nobody murders by free choice.

Everybody murders by free choice. There is no other way. Nothing else controls our actions or our thoughts; only we do. Someone always makes the decision to take the life, there is always a free choice.
 
:lamo Look at this guy jitterbugging all over the room trying to pretend he hasn't been chewing on his foot the whole time!

So you're admitting that you tried to lie and purposefully pretended that you were talking about Bodi's comments when it was clearly not.

Hey, pass that opium pipe over here! (But seriously, dude. WTF does this even mean?)

Also, you quoted most of the post,

Ohmygosh, you FINALLY got it! YAY!!!! You're correct. I quoted most (but not all) of the post - the portions I agree with. Gold star for you! :thumbs:

including the emotional appeal

Mmmm... No. The "emotional appeal" was the portion of Goshin's post that I DIDN'T quote. You even said so, right here:

That post which was specifically referred to was one of emotion and not logic. It was about "feeling good about themselves". Oh, having the guy killed brought sense of closure. That's emotional response, it's easy to see

which included the portion of the quote that you bolded

No. The bolded portion was a simple statement of fact. A dead murderer will murder no more. If you have evidence that this would not be the case everywhere on earth, I invite you to present it.

Oh, I also invite you to try being intellectually honest. You'll find you'll be able to construct better arguments with honesty than through lies, hyperbole, and misdirect.

And you won't have to do so much (piss-poor) tap-dancing. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
There was no tap dancing. I said you quoted Goshin's emotionalized post, and you did. You responded by trying to claim you were talking of Bodi's post, which was a purposeful lie to deflect. It wasn't true. You also did quote the emotionalized part of Goshin's post because the last part is an excuse on non-logical basis. It's more than the statement that he can't kill anymore, it's excusing the use of the death penalty based on possible future crimes. A dead person may not be able to commit future crimes, but that alone is not sufficient argument for the death penalty. So let's review: This part of Goshin's quote is emotionalized propaganda:

"Sympathy for a murderer is an insult to his victims.

Deterrent be damned, I care not. At least I know he will never murder another innocent person"

This is the part you had quoted. First off, sympathy for a murder is not an insult to the victims. It is quite possible to have sympathy for a wide range of people, and just because you may feel sorry for some dude doesn't mean that you excuse their behavior or have no sympathy for any other party involved. This is emotional rhetoric. Secondly, "At least I know he will never murder another innocent person" (the part you claim to agree with, to which you said "good enough for me" presumably in the context of using the death penalty) is an emotional and illogical statement. First off, you don't know if he would murder another innocent person if you left him alive. You're assuming that part. Secondly, while it may be true that dead men murder no one, that alone is not excuse for the death penalty. You cannot punish someone on the basis of possible crimes they would commit in the future.

At least you're not trying to change the posts you claim to be referring to, so I'll give you kudos on that. But this was still a big swing and a miss by you; so again I'll invite you to participate in an intellectually honest debate without deflection.
 
Last edited:
There was no tap dancing. [insert lengthy tap routine here]

blah.gif
blah.gif


TonyWaagDanceShotsm.jpg


blah.gif
blah.gif
 
I dont think a Christian is somebody who can reasonably comment on perception of reality.


A remarkably narrow-minded viewpoint. So much so, that you're making the most fundamental of fundamentalists look open-minded by comparison.

Well, dogs gotta bark and haters gotta hate... :shrug:
 


K, well it seems you're well more interested in deflection and intellectual dishonesty than you are in actually engaging the topic. Sorry I called you on your lie early to deflect away from your quote; but it was reality. No matter how hard you try to rage against it or shove your head in the sand, it's not going to change what is. You have no interest in addressing posts, only making fun and trying hard to not engage points. So we know where you stand on integrity and honesty, at least we were able to get some information. Continue on with your childish debating style, your inability to address points or be honest with what you are quoting has been noted.​
 
K, well it seems you're well more interested in deflection and intellectual dishonesty than you are in actually engaging the topic... You have no interest in addressing posts, only making fun and trying hard to not engage points.

Now you're just trying to be a comedian (and failing, terribly). :doh

I invite you to review posts 66, 68, 78, and 82, wherein I engage in a serious, thoughtful, and carefully considered discussion of my position, and provide valid and documented evidence to back it all up.

Thus far, all you've done is try to put words in other people's mouths, get emotional about what portions of a post I quoted, confuse quotes and blame others for it, call me a liar repeatedly when there is no such evidence, and then twist yourself into pretzels trying to convince me that what the voices in your head are saying is fact. Oh, and you've offered absolutely zero documentation for anything you've said, to boot. Intellectual honesty, my ass.

Which of us has spent absurd amounts of time wandering off on some odd emotional tangent about quotes? That would be you.

Which of us has offered not only legitimate documentation for what they've said, but also made suggestions for improvements/changes to the existing situation? ME.

Kthx. Have a nice day. Buh-bye. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Everybody murders by free choice. There is no other way. Nothing else controls our actions or our thoughts; only we do. Someone always makes the decision to take the life, there is always a free choice.

If that way with you, you're either an alien from mars or the only one on earth, probably some kind of mutant, who has free choice.

ricksfolly
 
Back
Top Bottom