• 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!

How long will he live?

How long will he live?

  • Less than 6-months

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • 6 months to a year

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • 1 to 2 years

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • 2 to 5 years

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • 5 to 10 years

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • He'll die of natural causes

    Votes: 16 72.7%

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This thread must be an example of those superior conservative morals I keep hearing about.

And what, exactly, is morally suspect about killing a man who is a clear and present danger to our national security?
 
And what, exactly, is morally suspect about killing a man who is a clear and present danger to our national security?

He's not, killing him won't change a thing, the clear and present danger to your national security are those leaking the info, he's a mere figurehead, and killing him would do more harm than good, he would be elevated to martyr status.
 
He's not, killing him won't change a thing, the clear and present danger to your national security are those leaking the info, he's a mere figurehead, and killing him would do more harm than good, he would be elevated to martyr status.

Okay, so it wouldn't be very effective. I still don't see how it's morally dubious.
 
Because it's pointless. Killing him, for no good reason, is murder, which is morally dubious.
i thought murder was the unlawful killing of an individual(thank you anti-life). if the state sanctions it, it's not unlawful now is it?
 
This thread must be an example of those superior conservative morals I keep hearing about.

Tell me how this contravenes "superior conservative morals"?

I think it is a fair question to ask. He hasn't only pissed off the United States, but barbaric regimes that snuff people without much problem, and those that have done far, far less.

And what, exactly, is morally suspect about killing a man who is a clear and present danger to our national security?
I wasn't thinking about our government doing it, but he should be labeled a terrorist.

.
 
Last edited:
i thought murder was the unlawful killing of an individual(thank you anti-life). if the state sanctions it, it's not unlawful now is it?

Indeed, but state sanctions assasinations (under US law) are illegal, so it's still murder.
 
i thought murder was the unlawful killing of an individual(thank you anti-life). if the state sanctions it, it's not unlawful now is it?

He's not under our jurisdiction and would never be so foolish as to place himself there without getting himself abducted. There will never be a trial. So if the State sanctions killing him, it will do so by violating both our laws and the laws of whatever country we catch him in.

Thus murder.

Still don't see the argument that it's morally dubious. Contrary to spud_meister's assertion, it's hardly pointless because if he comes down with so much as a hangnail others will understand that they **** with the American government at their own risk.
 
Still don't see the argument that it's morally dubious. Contrary to spud_meister's assertion, it's hardly pointless because if he comes down with so much as a hangnail others will understand that they **** with the American government at their own risk.

The threat of death has never being a deterrent, as studies on the death penalty have shown, so I still assert it is pointless and immoral to kill him.
 
I don't see how merely questioning how long it will be before someone kills him can be considered an example of lacking morals. The OP was not calling for this douches death, just asking when it would occur. typical liberal BS from Hatuey
 
The threat of death has never being a deterrent, as studies on the death penalty have shown, so I still assert it is pointless and immoral to kill him.

The death penalty is a proven deterrent, and I suspect that if Julian Fries Assange knew he'd be offed beforehand, he'd have thought twice. I'd say the same for the 22-year old moron that provided the info. If they line up the kid that stole the documents and fill him full of lead, you don't think the next potential idiot will think twice? You betcha.

On the other hand we have the German Terrorists in the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) that killed innocent people. They've released some of these idiots. Idiots that should never see the light of day. Now; should some wiseguy terrorist of the Islamofascist persuasion find himself behind bars for life in a German prison for committing heinous acts... his lawyer has grounds to have the idiot released based on judicial precedent of other terrorists being released. If the RAF morons were killed, it might have been a deterrent. Instead, a horrific message is sent.

Knowing you have a chance at life only encourages some borderline idiots.

A review of executions and homicides in Texas by criminologist Raymond Teske at Sam Houston in Huntsville and Duke sociologists Kenneth Land and Hui Zheng concludes a monthly decline of between 0.5 to 2.5 homicides in Texas follows each execution.

David McDowall, a professor at the State University of New York at Albany and an expert in statistical analysis of crime and violence patterns, said the study appeared solid and used standard accepted research methods.
Study says Texas death penalty a homicide deterrent | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Since I became Governor, violent crime has declined 11 percent, with murder showing the largest decline at even more than 22 percent. New Yorkers live in safer communities today because we are finally creating a climate that protects our citizens and causes criminals to fear arrest, prosecution and punishment.

We believe that this has occurred in part because of the strong signal that the death penalty sent to violent criminals and murderers: we won't excuse criminals, we will punish them. Last September 1 marked a new era in our fight against crime. The death penalty became the law of New York State.

Shortly before the death penalty went into effect I listened to the families of 20 murder victims as they told of their pain. No family should have to go through such a wrenching experience. I will never forget the words of Janice Hunter, whose 27-year-old daughter was stabbed 47 times by serial killer Nathaniel White in 1992.
Death penalty is a deterrent

George E. Pataki, Governor of New York State
USA Today - March 1997
Capital punishment gives killers good cause to fear arrest and conviction.

SEPT. 1, 1995, marked the end of a long fight for justice in New York and the beginning of a new era in our state that promises safer communities, fewer victims of crime, and renewed personal freedom. For 22 consecutive years, my predecessors had ignored the urgent calls for justice from our citizens their repeated and pressing demands for the death penalty in New York State. Even after the legislature passed a reinstatement of the capital punishment law, it was vetoed for 18 years in a row. (Twelve of those vetoes came from the pen of former Gov. Mario Cuomo.)

That was wrong. To fight and deter crime effectively, individuals must have every tool government can afford them, including the death penalty. Upon taking office, I immediately began the process of reinstating the death penalty. Two months later, I signed the death penalty into law for the most heinous and ruthless killers in our society.

Protecting the residents of New York against crime and violence is my first priority. Indeed, it is the most fundamental duty of government. For too long, coddling of criminals allowed unacceptable levels of violence to permeate the streets. They were not subject to swift and certain punishment and, as a result, violent criminal acts were not deterred.

For more than two decades, New York was without the death penalty. During this time, fear of crime was compounded by the fact that, too often, it largely went unpunished.

No more. In New York, the death penalty has turned the tables on fear and put it back where it belongs-in the hearts of criminals. Within just one year, the death penalty helped produce a dramatic drop in violent crime. Just as important, it has restored New Yorkers' confidence in the justice system because they know their government genuinely is committed to their safety.

.
 
Last edited:
Salmon Rushdie has a new book out. Mick Jagger and Jane Fonda are still alive, I think? Hell, even Barack Hussein Obama looks healthy.

And Zim, the death penalty has never deterred a single thing.
 
Last edited:
and gun control has reduced the amount of gun related crime... :roll:

For every study Zimmer can find that says the death penalty deters crime, I can find two that say it doesn't. However I doubt it'd be possible to find an unbiased source, so it's rather a moot point.
 
For every study Zimmer can find that says the death penalty deters crime, I can find two that say it doesn't. However I doubt it'd be possible to find an unbiased source, so it's rather a moot point.

all it takes is ONE example to prove that it does deter crime. it may not deter everyone, but it will deter some. To say that the death penalty does not deter crime is like saying that if you ban guns, no one will have a gun.
 
all it takes is ONE example to prove that it does deter crime. it may not deter everyone, but it will deter some. To say that the death penalty does not deter crime is like saying that if you ban guns, no one will have a gun.

It helps to have as much info as possible and if possible uncontradictory info so we can look at the potential cost-benefit analysis. At least thats my take on the issue.
 
all it takes is ONE example to prove that it does deter crime. it may not deter everyone, but it will deter some. To say that the death penalty does not deter crime is like saying that if you ban guns, no one will have a gun.

Comparing two non-entities usually causes an analogy to fall flat. Like yours.
 
all it takes is ONE example to prove that it does deter crime. it may not deter everyone, but it will deter some. To say that the death penalty does not deter crime is like saying that if you ban guns, no one will have a gun.

But to apply your argument to the gun ban example, if you ban guns, and it stops one person from having a gun and thus commiting a crime with it, is it not worth it?
 
For every study Zimmer can find that says the death penalty deters crime, I can find two that say it doesn't. However I doubt it'd be possible to find an unbiased source, so it's rather a moot point.

I think it's common sense really. If you find someone you are head over heals with and discover that individual has a sexual disease known to cause pain, suffering and death, will you give that individual a go? You might :) , most would be deterred.

The death penalty will not deter everyone, that's not the point, but it will deter some, and if it saves even one life it's worth it. I think the numbers of Pataki's NY before he implemented the death sentence, and after is quite revealing.

.
 
Tell me how this contravenes "superior conservative morals"?

... He hasn't only pissed off the United States, but barbaric regimes that snuff people without much problem...

What's the difference?
 
But to apply your argument to the gun ban example, if you ban guns, and it stops one person from having a gun and thus commiting a crime with it, is it not worth it?

Attempting to ban guns has resulted in higher crime rates in Canada and Britain. It's easy to understand why. The thugs don't fear anyone having weapons, and this makes women most vulnerable.

It's their best defense against an idiot set out to do harm.

Not all women need carry guns for it to work either, just enough so the scum of society have to think twice, or three times.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/....html?id=fb715fde-9cee-42e2-ae75-81061c3cee14
Reaping what we sow

More broadly: Canada's overall crime rate is now 50% higher than the crime rate in the United States. Read that again slowly -- it seems incredible, but it's true. It's true too that you are now more likely to be mugged in Toronto than in New York City.

Rape – In the 80s and 90s, US rates were higher than most of the Western countries, but by 2000, Canada is leading. Rape reports are lower in Asia and the Middle East.

Robbery – The past 2 decades saw a steady decline in the US. Countries with more reported robberies than US include England, Wales, Portugal, and Spain. Those with fewer are France, Germany, and Italy, and Asian countries plus the Middle East.
http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

.
 
Last edited:
What's the difference?

I was waiting for that. It's a Hazlnut type comment. You've taken the Hazlnut Chair at the DP table. Congratulations!

You fail to realize we are the only super power nation in history that hasn't gone on a conquest. We have a mighty job to do, protecting the world.
It's not a pretty job, probably akin to watching sausage being made, but we do it with a pretty clean, but not perfect history.

We've helped not just nations but continents fix their hellish ways. We defeated the Evil Empire.

We provide billions to Africa for AIDs assistance (when the EU can't do 1/20th). We are generous and benevolent. Hell, we even came to aid the Europeans with their last war in the Balkans. Not our job, not in our national interest, but we did it because the EU is wholly incompetent and impotent.

You should move to China and shoot your mouth off. Or Russia. Libya, or some ME country; try with women's rights and gay rights. Perhaps the Ukraine, or one of them "stans" and tell me how the US is no different from barbaric regimes. If you're alive to speak about your experiences.

Dumhuved.

.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom