• 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!

Oklahoma executes man who murdered two campers

Fine.

Then we install guillotines and whack their heads off, and put it on cable for all to see, if that's what's needed.

I've no objections.

Or a wood chipper or a steam roller or we can do the Cask of Amontillado thing from Poe.

Clearly what's needed are more executions, with varied methods in the various states, to determine which methods produced the greatest deterrent effect in a scientific manner.

I don't really care how Jose Avilla is executed, so long as he's eradicated soon.

Is there any sound basis that can be derived from rational deterrence theory for claiming that utilization of such methods actually functions as a rational deterrent, to put it plainly? Or is this simply a crude little sentiment you enjoy expressing because of mere bloodlust not accompanied by reason? And more than that, while you may not have objections, those with an interest in upholding the Eighth Amendment might. ;)

I think the problem is inconsistency of the punishments. Sometimes you'll get the death penalty and sometimes you get life.

How and why would that even have any relevance to the fact that electrocution appears to function as a deterrent while other methods do not?, or to the overall effect of capital punishment as a whole?

Then there is the fact they are granted a lot of appeals. If someone was convicted with solid evidence then there is no reason we should wait 10 years after that person was convicted for his sentence to take place.

That would likely result in an increase in the number of unjust executions of innocent victims.

Yep.

Common sense.

And people like you are the cause of why common sense isn't so common anymore.

Nope. And I don't believe there's much basis for your "common sense" either than anecdotal experiences. But we're not interested in hearing "my daddy paddled me right quick when I sinned and I turned out all right"; analysis of large data sets is necessary.
 
Actually, most people would agree that I'm on the more rigid end when it comes to this in that I can be uptight as hell in demanding valid empirical research in these instances. The reason for that is because some seem to believe that their personal experiences or anectodal reports are a sufficient basis for policy formation. But the vast heterogeneity of the spectrum of human experiences renders any such arrangement useless, which is why I consider statistical analysis of large data sets necessary. The usage of corporal punishment as a generally sound parenting practice was advocated, and I therefore needed such analysis rather than anecodtal speculation to form a sound opinion.

Ah, I see. That's actually fair enough, and I guess having evidence (crap or oherwise) makes it all more interesting anyway. :cool:
 
No.

One can't argue that having the death penalty deters crimes invoking that sentence.

Carrying out the sentence on a reliable basis swiftly.

That's the deterrent.

When we get back to executing murders on an assembly line basis, we'll soon see a decline in the number of crimes requireing execution being committed.

But couldn't you argue that reliability is LESS likely to be obtained if the speed in which executions are carried out is increased? I mean, killing a human being isn't as clear-cut as smuggling drugs into a country is (and even THAT'S sometimes complicated :doh ), so if capital punishment is only to be used as punishment for first-degree murder, surely it takes time to make sure? I agree that the appeal system is a bit out of hand though, although there are still some cases (one happened in New Zealand a month ago with a guy sentenced to 25 years or something, acquitted after 10 years) where new evidence can be discovered that might unbalance a previously solid guilty conviction.

I guess the question is: Is it worth the risk of killing a few people who might not don't deserve it, in order to give the punishment an actual purpose? You could easily argue that yes, it is. (Although I'd disagree, but meh :2razz: )
 
Nope. And I don't believe there's much basis for your "common sense" either than anecdotal experiences. But we're not interested in hearing "my daddy paddled me right quick when I sinned and I turned out all right"; analysis of large data sets is necessary.
Common sense.

Apparently unless there is some 'research' put into anything you discuss it doesn't mean anything to Agnapostate, unless in the case of George Bush conspiracy theories.

Listen buddy, if a kid goes through life never being disciplined when he does something wrong, he is going to grow up thinking he can do just about whatever the hell he wants to. Parents that encourage this attitude are a part of the problem.
 
Is there any sound basis that can be derived from rational deterrence theory for claiming that utilization of such methods actually functions as a rational deterrent, to put it plainly?

You mean besides the fact that if all kidnapper/murderer were executed in a reasonable period of time after conviction eventually all future kidnapper/murderers would be aware of the penalty and take that into consideration before acting?

No, of course not. Criminals never think of the consequences of what they do, they're just mindless crime machines.

You can pretend deterrence doesn't work if you want. I won't stop you. I bet you can even find a huge library of references from pointy-headed bleeding hearts that have faked up studies to say just that. But in the real world, it deterrent penalties deter, and do so effectively.

Or is this simply a crude little sentiment you enjoy expressing because of mere bloodlust not accompanied by reason?

No, it's awful nasty bloodlust accompanied by a coldly reasoning pitiless calculating machine.

And more than that, while you may not have objections, those with an interest in upholding the Eighth Amendment might. ;)

Executions using guillotines are not cruel by any coldly heartless reasoning, and hence conform to the Eighth Amendment.

Executions done often enough are not "unusual", and hence conform to the Eighth Amendment.

Since capital punishment was in vogue when the Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified, cold reasoning states that the fact of execution and the means employed today are not and cannot be in violation of the Eighth Amendment, since they tended to hang people by the neck back then until they were dead.

Bleeding hearts cannot use the Eighth Amendment in support of their cause, the original intent of the Eighth Amendment denies their case completely.

How and why would that even have any relevance to the fact that electrocution appears to function as a deterrent while other methods do not?

As already stated, let's do some experiments. We'll execute a bunch of people with the pretty little needles, and see how that works on the crime rate, then electrocute a good handful, see how that works, then guillotine a bunch, see how that works, and we'll hang a whole bunch.

And if we do it right, death row will be empty.

Which is the goal of any sane person.

That would likely result in an increase in the number of unjust executions of innocent victims.

Guess what? I'm not discussing details of cases here. Can't you please bleed your heart on someone else? The assumption is that CONVICTED murders are justly convicted. Jose Avilla should be executed. That Mumia thug should have been executed. Scott Peterson should be executed. There's a huge list of critters on death row for whom absolutely zero doubt exists to their guilt. There may be one or two possibly wrongly sentenced, but it's really not likely, given the nature of modern bleeding heart law. So kill them.

DNA should be the gold standard of capital punishment. If the DNA says they did it, pull the switch on them. If other evidence, like that against the Mumia thug, makes their guilt certain, drop the pill in the acid and get it over with.

Why waste pity on the guilty? We as a nation have better things to do.
 
Common sense.

Apparently unless there is some 'research' put into anything you discuss it doesn't mean anything to Agnapostate, unless in the case of George Bush conspiracy theories.

What? :confused:

Listen buddy, if a kid goes through life never being disciplined when he does something wrong, he is going to grow up thinking he can do just about whatever the hell he wants to. Parents that encourage this attitude are a part of the problem.

And I can also claim that reward and punishment are responsible for the creation of personality deficiencies, as Alfie Kohn does, for example. Without sound evidence to prove what I say, you'd have no reason to believe me...though I don't doubt that you wouldn't believe me even if I had it. :shrug:
 
Common sense.

Apparently unless there is some 'research' put into anything you discuss it doesn't mean anything to Agnapostate, unless in the case of George Bush conspiracy theories.

Listen buddy, if a kid goes through life never being disciplined when he does something wrong, he is going to grow up thinking he can do just about whatever the hell he wants to. Parents that encourage this attitude are a part of the problem.

Paraphrases from Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein:

INSTRUCTOR: How do you housebreak a puppy?

JUAN: Why, when he makes a mess you rub his nose in it to let him know what he's done wrong, you swat him with a rolled up paper to let him know he's being punished, and then you put him in the middle of some newspapers to let him know where he should be doing it.

INSTRUCTOR: What if I told you someone had a puppy and allowed it to make any mess it wanted to wherever it felt like it, and did nothing to instruct the puppy in when and where to go, and then noticed one day that the puppy was now a full grown dog and decided that he couldn't have the dog doing that and shot him?

JUAN: Why, that's the craziest way of raising a dog I ever heard of! You must not know much about dogs.

INSTRUCTOR: I know a lot about dogs, I'm raising three now. And you're right, it's a crazy way to raise dogs. I'm doing it the way you said. But during the Crazy Times, thats how people raised their children.

=====

We're still in the Crazy Times.
 
But couldn't you argue that reliability is LESS likely to be obtained if the speed in which executions are carried out is increased?

No, I couldn't, because I'm honest.

Other people can try.

Here's a clue for you: the trial is what determines innocence or guilt, not the appeals process. The appeals process is to check that procedural rules were followed correctly, not re-verify the evidence. Jose Avilla's sperm, verified by DNA, was found inside the body of the five year old girl he kidnapped, raped, and murdered, and her DNA was found in his car. His guilt is not in question.

Since his guilt is foregone, there's no real reason to be wasting time quibbling over comma's and i-dots in his trial. Behead him, or put him through a giant egg-slicer, or maybe try something new in the way of a pnuematic Slap-Chop, or maybe even a "Graty", but he should have been executed years ago. The little girl who's life he stole would have been ten by now.

I mean, killing a human being isn't as clear-cut as smuggling drugs into a country is

Sometimes it is. It often is, in fact.

I guess the question is: Is it worth the risk of killing a few people who might not don't deserve it, in order to give the punishment an actual purpose? You could easily argue that yes, it is. (Although I'd disagree, but meh :2razz: )

Yeah, ignore the specific cases I mentioned, they don't support what you say.
 
No, I couldn't, because I'm honest.

Other people can try.

Here's a clue for you: the trial is what determines innocence or guilt, not the appeals process. The appeals process is to check that procedural rules were followed correctly, not re-verify the evidence. Jose Avilla's sperm, verified by DNA, was found inside the body of the five year old girl he kidnapped, raped, and murdered, and her DNA was found in his car. His guilt is not in question.

Since his guilt is foregone, there's no real reason to be wasting time quibbling over comma's and i-dots in his trial. Behead him, or put him through a giant egg-slicer, or maybe try something new in the way of a pnuematic Slap-Chop, or maybe even a "Graty", but he should have been executed years ago. The little girl who's life he stole would have been ten by now.



Sometimes it is. It often is, in fact.



Yeah, ignore the specific cases I mentioned, they don't support what you say.

Here's a clue for you, jackass: there's no point in patronizing people who are already aware that they know less than the majority of the people here. I'm absolutely, in every conceivable way, entitled to think that killing other human beings is wrong, no matter what the reason, but that doesn't mean that I do, and I don't deny you your right to think otherwise. It doesn't stop me from wanting to see what you think, but just because you've decided you're right doesn't mean I have to change my mind. :(

You're right about the killing people being clear-cut thing though. What I meant was more like, the diffence between 1st degree, crimes of passion, insanity, manslaughter etc. With drugs, I guess its more like 1) you smuggled drugs and 2) you didn't, so I guess it's a bit easier to manage. You gotta admit, it definitely works in those countries :shock:.
 
Yep.

Common sense.

And people like you are the cause of why common sense isn't so common anymore.
So you're operating under the premise that people stupid enough to murder have "common sense", as you put it? Solid plan. :roll:
 
So do you think the only reason that people rape and murder people is because they're not being threatened with big enough punishments? Would everyone go around killing and raping people if they're weren't going to punished in return? By that logic, New Zealand, which doesn't even have a life sentence, would have a far higher per capita rate of murder and rape than America, wouldn't it? Surely the basic logic that killing or harming others of our own species is detrimental to the human race is ingrained in almost all humans? So there must be SOMETHING screwed up about someone who breaks that logic, right? Well, that was my thinking anyway, although of course you're right that murderes aren't all 'mentally ill' in an easily definably sense.

And you're right that killing them prevents them from hurting anyone else, but that doesn't make it the BEST way. I guess my thinking is that, while the death penalty works a dream for Singapore,etc when it comes to smuggling drugs (I've heard that Singapore's drug problems are in the region of non-existant! :shock:), murdering people who murder others doesn't seem to have as good an effect in discouraging people from murder any more than less severe punishments.

No. I speculated that it might be a factor. All I can say for certain is that when a murderer is executed, that's one less violent criminal in the world that will prey upon society, leaving death and untold grief in their wake. That makes it worth it to me.
 
So you're operating under the premise that people stupid enough to murder have "common sense", as you put it? Solid plan. :roll:

Are you arguing that if we didn't punish criminals then the crime rate wouldn't go up? A lot of people do care about the consequences.
 
Are you arguing that if we didn't punish criminals then the crime rate wouldn't go up?
No, I'm arguing that corporal punishment is obviously no deterrent for committing crimes. Instead it costs more and is rather primitive.
 
So you're operating under the premise that people stupid enough to murder have "common sense", as you put it? Solid plan. :roll:

Common sense comment wasn't directed at 'people stupid enough to murder'

It was directed at Agnasty-prostate for his comment about 'empircal evidence research blah blah proof that disciplining a child can prevent them from becoming a criminal later in life' blah blah blah.
 
No, I'm arguing that corporal punishment is obviously no deterrent for committing crimes. Instead it costs more and is rather primitive.

Just because something isn't 100% effective doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

That has and will always be the most ineffective argument against punishment for crimes committed.
 
...

How long does it take to go over the trial transcripts and see where a real violation of procedure happened, ...

Shouldn't take longer than a few months, ...
It's not just procedure that is looked at, but evidence as well.
'If', and that is a big 'if', all the lawyers and the Court involved could exclusively dedicate their time and have unlimited resources, most cases probably could be settled in just a 'few months'.
But that isn't feasible, and the expense to do such would be enormous.



All I can say for certain is that when a murderer is executed, that's one less violent criminal in the world that will prey upon society, leaving death and untold grief in their wake.
That makes it worth it to me.
You do realize that those who have committed murder and have been released, are in a group that are least likely to re-offend/lowest recidivism rates.
To me that is an indication that the death penalty is not worth while pursuing except in cases where a person could not be rehabilitated.
 
except in cases where a person could not be rehabilitated.

And meanwhile, we can risk the lives of additional people finding out which cases those are....:roll:
 
It's not just procedure that is looked at, but evidence as well.
'If', and that is a big 'if', all the lawyers and the Court involved could exclusively dedicate their time and have unlimited resources, most cases probably could be settled in just a 'few months'.
But that isn't feasible, and the expense to do such would be enormous.

Sure it's feasible. Let the capital cases get head of the line privilege, shovel them through.

Take the case of Jose Avilla, as open and shut as will ever be seen in law. His DNA is inside his five year old victim, her DNA is in his car. Eye witness to the snatching, she's only five, but her description was accurate enough for the artist composite to match the accused. Tire track molds at the scene where the body is found match the car.

All solid evidence. Absolutely zero doubt that he's the animal that killed that little girl.

It doesn't take five years to review this evidence.

It doesn't take a week.

It doesn't take five years to review the court proceeding and determine the process was done correctly.

That wouldn't take a month.

Yet this condemned child killer is alive and wasting precious oxygen five years later.

Why?

Because lawyers are making money by appealing the locations of commas and other trivia.

The state appeals should re-certify the evidence and the court procedure.

The federal government should only be concerned if the accused was denied some Constitutional right that would invalidate the trial. If that court ruled no, then that's the end of it.

Lawyers that repeatedly file frivolous nonsense that clearly has no basis in law merely to delay the execution of the sentence should be fined and disbarred, and possibly required to pay the court costs.

You do realize that those who have committed murder and have been released, are in a group that are least likely to re-offend/lowest recidivism rates.

Oh, well, then why bother with prisons at all. Just get a conviction and let them go.

:roll:

To me that is an indication that the death penalty is not worth while pursuing except in cases where a person could not be rehabilitated.

When they're dead, you don't have to worry about their rehabilitation. They're done habilitating.

They're also done murdering.
 
And meanwhile, we can risk the lives of additional people finding out which cases those are...
No, you find out while they are incarcerated and release only those who may not re-offend.
Meanwhile it is more likely that a person will be killed by someone who hasn't been convicted of murder, so your statement is just fear mongering.


Sure it's feasible. Let the capital cases get head of the line privilege, shovel them through.
And thereby increasing the expenditures of those cases that are delayed. :doh


Take the case of Jose Avilla, ...
I have no knowledge of this case.
Please provide a link so I can accurately ascertain whether what you say is true, or not.



That wouldn't take a month.
It may be possible to do so in some cases, if as I said, the lawyers (and all involved) were able to exclusively dedicate their time and have unlimited resources. But that isn't possible.


Because lawyers are making money by appealing the locations of commas and other trivia.
Bs


The state appeals should re-certify the evidence and the court procedure.
Should?
No they shouldn't.




The federal government should only be concerned if the accused was denied some Constitutional right that would invalidate the trial. If that court ruled no, then that's the end of it.
Anything that substantially effects due process is a violation of a Constitutional 'Right'.




Lawyers that repeatedly file frivolous nonsense that clearly has no basis in law merely to delay the execution of the sentence should be fined and disbarred, and possibly required to pay the court costs.
What you may call frivolous, may in fact not actually be frivolous at all.




Oh, well, then why bother with prisons at all. Just get a conviction and let them go.

:roll:
I guess from from your smiley, you know this is a ridiculous statement, because it totally removes the punishment for doing wrong.



When they're dead, you don't have to worry about their rehabilitation. They're done habilitating.
As the system currently is, it is cheaper to rehabilitate and release than it is to incarcerate or kill. Costs could further be reduced if early detection and education could be implemented at early ages, which would reduce the amount of crimes committed.



They're also done murdering.
The likelyhood is that they were done murdering after it happened the first time. So killing those who wouldn't re-offend serves no purpose other than vengeance.
 
No, you find out while they are incarcerated and release only those who may not re-offend.
Meanwhile it is more likely that a person will be killed by someone who hasn't been convicted of murder, so your statement is just fear mongering.


And how does one find out those who may not re-offend. Ask them? :rofl
 
And thereby increasing the expenditures of those cases that are delayed.

How?

Moving a date back increases the number of billable hours in what way? It increases the filing fees of the courts in what way? It increases the number of hours in court in what way?


I have no knowledge of this case.
Please provide a link so I can accurately ascertain whether what you say is true, or not.

Ah...turns out his official name is Alejandro Avila, but Jose was used in the news at the time. It's been a while, and the scum is still breathing.

Here's a website:



As the system currently is, it is cheaper to rehabilitate and release than it is to incarcerate or kill. Costs could further be reduced if early detection and education could be implemented at early ages, which would reduce the amount of crimes committed.

I've no objection to shooting as many defense lawyers as needed to encourage the survivors to speed up the process.
 
Back
Top Bottom