15
   

The least cruel method of execution?

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 04:10 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

You're chasing your tail here too. The additional justification you seek (to justify the guaranteed solution) is inherent in capital cases by virtue of their being capital cases. What further justification could you need?

Well, now you're just being deliberately obtuse. The "additional justification" that I was talking about is that which is needed to justify using capital punishment when a sentence of life without parole can accomplish the same ends. In other words, if life without parole incapacitates a prisoner to the same extent as execution, then the state needs additional justification in order to prefer the latter to the former.

You're saying, in effect, that the additional justification is that execution prevents recidivism. But so does life without parole. That's my point. What you need to provide is something more than just the rationale "execution prevents recidivism."
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 04:12 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Though, if I were king, I'd be content to see these offenders face the same fate:
Joe wrote:
Certainly, capital punishment would also end the criminal careers of habitual rapists, arsonists
You can add "habitual" domestic violence offenders, child molesters, and other heinous criminals who "habitually" exibit a depraved indifference as well, as far as I'm concerned.

Why not execute people convicted of assault and battery? Or passing bad checks? Or speeding?
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 04:42 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You're chasing your tail here too. The additional justification you seek (to justify the guaranteed solution) is inherent in capital cases by virtue of their being capital cases. What further justification could you need?

Well, now you're just being deliberately obtuse. The "additional justification" that I was talking about is that which is needed to justify using capital punishment when a sentence of life without parole can accomplish the same ends. In other words, if life without parole incapacitates a prisoner to the same extent as execution, then the state needs additional justification in order to prefer the latter to the former.

You're saying, in effect, that the additional justification is that execution prevents recidivism. But so does life without parole. That's my point. What you need to provide is something more than just the rationale "execution prevents recidivism."
"Life without parole" has been proven less effective than capital punishment for preventing recidivism (you know this, but I can re-cut & paste evidence if need be.) Hence; the capital nature of the crime provides the additional justification you seek for differentiating it from lesser crimes, and the demonstrated fact that "Life without parole" does NOT incapacitate a prisoner to the same extent execution does provides the additional justification for choosing the more effective method of preventing recidivism.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 04:48 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Though, if I were king, I'd be content to see these offenders face the same fate:
Joe wrote:
Certainly, capital punishment would also end the criminal careers of habitual rapists, arsonists
You can add "habitual" domestic violence offenders, child molesters, and other heinous criminals who "habitually" exibit a depraved indifference as well, as far as I'm concerned.

Why not execute people convicted of assault and battery? Or passing bad checks? Or speeding?
Too often, assault and battery is charged in cases where two willing combatants are going at it for sport. This isn’t the case in DV, rape, arson, and murder. These crimes almost invariably contain a level of depraved indifference that is well beyond that of less violent crimes and most all fiscal crimes and crimes against property. The element of terror to the victim weighs heavily in my opinion… and I think methods of preventing recidivism should be considered accordingly.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 04:52 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
I see that you're taking your time trying to come up with some plausible reason/s that you shouldn't be awarded the Hypocrite of the Century award, Bill.

Ponder on.
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 05:29 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

I see that you're taking your time trying to come up with some plausible reason/s that you shouldn't be awarded the Hypocrite of the Century award, Bill.

Ponder on.
Rolling Eyes Hardly, troll: I’ve given your off-topic nonsense no thought whatsoever. What I've assumed instead is that your latest bout with idiocy is sufficiently evident without further clarification from me.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 06:02 pm
@InTraNsiTiOn,
InTraNsiTiOn wrote:

Who cares, would you rather have your hard earned tax dollars spent by keeping them behind bars. I wouldn't.

WELL SAID.

So stipulated.




David
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 06:17 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
"Life without parole" has been proven less effective than capital punishment for preventing recidivism (you know this, but I can re-cut & paste evidence if need be.)

No, I don't know that. And if you're referring to the cut and paste in this post, don't bother: it didn't support your argument then and it doesn't support your argument now.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Hence; the capital nature of the crime provides the additional justification you seek for differentiating it from lesser crimes, and the demonstrated fact that "Life without parole" does NOT incapacitate a prisoner to the same extent execution does provides the additional justification for choosing the more effective method of preventing recidivism.

If prisons aren't doing a good job at keeping prisoners from committing murders, then that's an argument for improving the prisons, not for killing the prisoners.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 06:20 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Too often, assault and battery is charged in cases where two willing combatants are going at it for sport. This isn’t the case in DV, rape, arson, and murder. These crimes almost invariably contain a level of depraved indifference that is well beyond that of less violent crimes and most all fiscal crimes and crimes against property. The element of terror to the victim weighs heavily in my opinion… and I think methods of preventing recidivism should be considered accordingly.

That's all well and good, but it misses the point. If all you're interested in is preventing recidivism, and since the death penalty prevents jaywalkers from jaywalking again just as effectively as it prevents murderers from murdering again, why not advocate executing jaywalkers?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 07:58 pm
Let us remember
that the Constitution prohibits
CRUEL and unusual punishments.

It does not require that capital punishment be 100% painless,
and the business of government is AVENGING the victim
not just preventing recidivism.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 10:55 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
"Life without parole" has been proven less effective than capital punishment for preventing recidivism (you know this, but I can re-cut & paste evidence if need be.)

No, I don't know that. And if you're referring to the cut and paste in this post, don't bother: it didn't support your argument then and it doesn't support your argument now.
Laughing Surely you jest. That list, like the one from the more recent debate, supports my point in spades (Royal Flush style). It did then and it does now. It can be summed up with the undeniable "Dead men don't re-offend." (A point you readily concede when you're not being deliberately obtuse.)

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Hence; the capital nature of the crime provides the additional justification you seek for differentiating it from lesser crimes, and the demonstrated fact that "Life without parole" does NOT incapacitate a prisoner to the same extent execution does provides the additional justification for choosing the more effective method of preventing recidivism.

If prisons aren't doing a good job at keeping prisoners from committing murders, then that's an argument for improving the prisons, not for killing the prisoners.
This dribble didn't work then and it won't w0rk now.

History has already demonstrated that life sentences can't be relied upon to prevent recidivism. This can be amply demonstrated by:
Murdered Prison Employees.
Murdered Prisoners.
Escaped prisoners murdering again.
Paroled murderers murdering again.

Pretending this problem can be addressed with the prison system or the laws regarding life sentences is moronic, Joe. Both can and have been changed for the better and worse and could be again. There's a limit to what prisons can do and a finite amount of resources to do it. History has shown that the State cannot be relied upon to prevent murders from occurring, inside prison or out, and reasonable people understand this. It can, however, prevent convicted murderers from killing again. And, like it or not Joe, there remains only one proven way to do this.

The thing you probably hate most about the death penalty, its irreversibility, is the very thing that makes it the only sure way to prevent recidivism.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 11:00 pm
Yes.
I like the way that radio personality Barry Farber put it:
"he who is INterred will be DEterred" from more murders.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 11:03 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Too often, assault and battery is charged in cases where two willing combatants are going at it for sport. This isn’t the case in DV, rape, arson, and murder. These crimes almost invariably contain a level of depraved indifference that is well beyond that of less violent crimes and most all fiscal crimes and crimes against property. The element of terror to the victim weighs heavily in my opinion… and I think methods of preventing recidivism should be considered accordingly.

That's all well and good, but it misses the point. If all you're interested in is preventing recidivism, and since the death penalty prevents jaywalkers from jaywalking again just as effectively as it prevents murderers from murdering again, why not advocate executing jaywalkers?
I can only assume you're trying to teach me to be more specific. For the purpose of this argument, my use of the term recidivism is meant to apply to murderers and other heinous criminals. I don't care how often you jaywalk or if you re-offend once caught.

Btw, I offered those other crimes as fodder for discussion… to weaken my case. Slapping you around with the obvious Dead men don’t re-offend will likely grow stale fast.

I also doubt you could prove Death Sentences aren't more cost efficient... if that's more intriguing.


0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 12:10 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Laughing Surely you jest. That list, like the one from the more recent debate, supports my point in spades (Royal Flush style). It did then and it does now. It can be summed up with the undeniable "Dead men don't re-offend." (A point you readily concede when you're not being deliberately obtuse.)

In order to show that life without parole doesn't work, you bring up examples of prisoners who weren't sentenced to life without parole, and you somehow think that proves your point?

Allow me a hearty guffaw.

Laughing

OCCOM BILL wrote:
This dribble didn't work then and it won't w0rk now.

History has already demonstrated that life sentences can't be relied upon to prevent recidivism. This can be amply demonstrated by:
Murdered Prison Employees.
Murdered Prisoners.
Escaped prisoners murdering again.
Paroled murderers murdering again.

Pretending this problem can be addressed with the prison system or the laws regarding life sentences is moronic, Joe. Both can and have been changed for the better and worse and could be again. There's a limit to what prisons can do and a finite amount of resources to do it. History has shown that the State cannot be relied upon to prevent murders from occurring, inside prison or out, and reasonable people understand this. It can, however, prevent convicted murderers from killing again. And, like it or not Joe, there remains only one proven way to do this.

You won't support devoting more resources to preventing murders by prisoners, and then use that as an excuse for saying that murders by prisoners can't be prevented. How is it that you never got a position in the Bush administration?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The thing you probably hate most about the death penalty, its irreversibility, is the very thing that makes it the only sure way to prevent recidivism.

Hate the death penalty? I'm the only one who truly believes in it, unlike posers such as yourself.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I can only assume you're trying to teach me to be more specific. For the purpose of this argument, my use of the term recidivism is meant to apply to murderers and other heinous criminals. I don't care how often you jaywalk or if you re-offend once caught.

Btw, I offered those other crimes as fodder for discussion… to weaken my case. Slapping you around with the obvious Dead men don’t re-offend will likely grow stale fast.

Wow, you really don't get it. I thought maybe you were trying to be clever or something , but you really just don't get it. I mean, if I asked some intelligent eight-year old why the punishment for murderers and jaywalkers should be qualitatively different, I'm sure he could come up with a satisfactory answer. You, on the other hand ... mmm, not so much. But I suppose that's unfair. After all, I'm sure that you were surprised when this thread was revived. If you had, say, another five years to think about your answer, you might have come up with something better. That's OK, I understand.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I also doubt you could prove Death Sentences aren't more cost efficient... if that's more intriguing.

Efficiency is not a proper goal for punishment. I don't give a damn whether a particular punishment is efficient or not.
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 12:20 am
Hey gang Very Happy

I'm pretty sure I said it 5 years ago as well, but I'll say it again, just for hell of it.

I'm against the death penalty for 3 reasons.
1. Too many innocent people being convicted.
2. It's surprisingly much more costly to put them out of their own misery.
3. It's an easy way out for slimebag. No more suffering in jail.

My biggest problem, which I feel needs some major changing is our laws. If someone intentionally takes another life, they should do life and life should be just what it says "life" with no chance of ever getting out.
Murderers should rot in jail for the rest of their living days, period!

And that's all she wrote Cool
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 12:24 am
@OCCOM BILL,
I see that you're a chickenshit too, Bill. Why didn't you address the first post, the one that goes to the central issue?

The poseur of an honest/caring man wrote:

Quote:
OB wrote: Not liking the idea of killing in the first place, but finding it justifiable in certain cases; I want the most effective solution carried out in the most humane way possible. I want him gone, but I believe torture to be a heinous act so I don't want him tortured, too. What the [email protected]@k is so hard to understand about that? If someone committed a heinous act against my loved ones, I believe I could kill them myself. I would not, could not, regardless of how horrible the crime, torture anyone. Not being a "hypocrite", I would not, could not, ask the state to do what I couldn't do myself.


Please point me to the threads/postings you've launched criticising all the torture that has been going in around the world, the state, your state specifically doing what you, "[N]ot being a "hypocrite", I would not, could not, ask the state to do what I couldn't [sic] do myself".

How is this not hypocrisy, Bill? Do give it some thought, Bill, because you're looking awfully silly, especially with that phony signature line.

Great cover though.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 01:30 am
@JTT,
I'll start with the Remora and come back for the shark.
JTT wrote:

I see that you're a chickenshit too, Bill. Why didn't you address the first post, the one that goes to the central issue?
Because, you moron, if you want to make a charge of hypocrisy; you need to show hypocrisy. Unless or until you demonstrate where I showed a preference for punitive torture; you’re blowing wind out your ass.

JTT wrote:
The poseur of an honest/caring man wrote:

Quote:
OB wrote: Not liking the idea of killing in the first place, but finding it justifiable in certain cases; I want the most effective solution carried out in the most humane way possible. I want him gone, but I believe torture to be a heinous act so I don't want him tortured, too. What the [email protected]@k is so hard to understand about that? If someone committed a heinous act against my loved ones, I believe I could kill them myself. I would not, could not, regardless of how horrible the crime, torture anyone. Not being a "hypocrite", I would not, could not, ask the state to do what I couldn't do myself.


Please point me to the threads/postings you've launched criticising all the torture that has been going in around the world, the state, your state specifically doing what you, "[N]ot being a "hypocrite", I would not, could not, ask the state to do what I couldn't [sic] do myself".
Laughing I've launched into plenty of attacks on the torturous ways of more than a few dictators, you ******* idiot. But the burden of proof to disprove your ridiculous claim doesn't rest on me. Now unless and until you provide a link to where I advocated punitive torture; you’ll continue to look like the trolling moron you are. Good luck!

JTT wrote:
How is this not hypocrisy, Bill? Do give it some thought, Bill, because you're looking awfully silly, especially with that phony signature line.

Great cover though.
As usual; you're making a complete ass of yourself flinging charges with ZERO substantiation. Watch:
I haven't seen JTT or remember seeing JTT speak out against NAMBLA. Clearly, he must actually support NAMBLA so if he speaks out against child molestation; I'll charge out and call him a hypocrite!

Do you really think you impress anyone with this idiocy?

The Remora is a troll. Back to ignore you go.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 01:41 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Laughing Surely you jest. That list, like the one from the more recent debate, supports my point in spades (Royal Flush style). It did then and it does now. It can be summed up with the undeniable "Dead men don't re-offend." (A point you readily concede when you're not being deliberately obtuse.)

In order to show that life without parole doesn't work, you bring up examples of prisoners who weren't sentenced to life without parole, and you somehow think that proves your point?

Allow me a hearty guffaw.

Laughing
WTF? I expect this kind of foolishness from the likes of JTT, Joe, but not you. Denial of easily verified fact is a sorry excuse for argument.
Quote:
12/4/01 - Alabama
Triple killer serving life without parole kills another inmate; finally gets death sentence

A Holman Prison inmate found guilty in September of murdering a fellow inmate was sentenced to the electric chair in an Escambia County courtroom. Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, 25, of Rainbow City, Ala., who was serving life without parole for 3 murders in Gadsden, was found guilty of capital murder and of having committed a murder after being convicted of other murders within the past 20 years.
Most literate people would read that and concede that Life without parole didn't stop Mr. Peraita from murdering again. Not you though, Joe? Really? Rolling Eyes


joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
This dribble didn't work then and it won't w0rk now.

History has already demonstrated that life sentences can't be relied upon to prevent recidivism. This can be amply demonstrated by:
Murdered Prison Employees.
Murdered Prisoners.
Escaped prisoners murdering again.
Paroled murderers murdering again.

Pretending this problem can be addressed with the prison system or the laws regarding life sentences is moronic, Joe. Both can and have been changed for the better and worse and could be again. There's a limit to what prisons can do and a finite amount of resources to do it. History has shown that the State cannot be relied upon to prevent murders from occurring, inside prison or out, and reasonable people understand this. It can, however, prevent convicted murderers from killing again. And, like it or not Joe, there remains only one proven way to do this.

You won't support devoting more resources to preventing murders by prisoners, and then use that as an excuse for saying that murders by prisoners can't be prevented. How is it that you never got a position in the Bush administration?
? Where did I say I wouldn't support devoting more resources to preventing murders by prisoners? (I didn't.) Interesting considering you provided me with my favorite definition of Strawman. Who are you? And what have you done with Joefromchicago? (Too many beers? Or did the Remora hack your screen name?)

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
The thing you probably hate most about the death penalty, its irreversibility, is the very thing that makes it the only sure way to prevent recidivism.

Hate the death penalty? I'm the only one who truly believes in it, unlike posers such as yourself.
Laughing That was a demented joke 5 years ago and remains so. It is also nonresponsive... probably because the truth is so patently obvious.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I can only assume you're trying to teach me to be more specific. For the purpose of this argument, my use of the term recidivism is meant to apply to murderers and other heinous criminals. I don't care how often you jaywalk or if you re-offend once caught.

Btw, I offered those other crimes as fodder for discussion… to weaken my case. Slapping you around with the obvious Dead men don’t re-offend will likely grow stale fast.

Wow, you really don't get it. I thought maybe you were trying to be clever or something , but you really just don't get it. I mean, if I asked some intelligent eight-year old why the punishment for murderers and jaywalkers should be qualitatively different, I'm sure he could come up with a satisfactory answer. You, on the other hand ... mmm, not so much. But I suppose that's unfair. After all, I'm sure that you were surprised when this thread was revived. If you had, say, another five years to think about your answer, you might have come up with something better. That's OK, I understand.
Rolling Eyes Really Joe? That's what you're going with? Pretty pathetic.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I also doubt you could prove Death Sentences aren't more cost efficient... if that's more intriguing.

Efficiency is not a proper goal for punishment. I don't give a damn whether a particular punishment is efficient or not.
Fair enough. At least you closed with a reasonable answer. I'm a bit surprised by the rest of that foolishness. More than a bit, really.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 02:32 am
@Montana,
Montana wrote:

Hey gang Very Happy
((((Montana)))) Always good to see you.

I know you're not into arguing, but I'm going to break up your reasons anyway in case someone else wants to defend them.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure I said it 5 years ago as well, but I'll say it again, just for hell of it.

I'm against the death penalty for 3 reasons.
1. Too many innocent people being convicted.
Ah, but not one executed person in recent history has been proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Not one.
Quote:
2. It's surprisingly much more costly to put them out of their own misery.
Nonsense. No honest, objective study shows that.
Quote:
3. It's an easy way out for slimebag. No more suffering in jail.
The vast majority of said slimebags disagree. So many in fact that Death Penalty States would be saving countless millions of dollars via court costs, trading Life Sentences for guilty pleas in plea bargains... if your number two were true (but it isn't.) On the other hand; absence of the Death Penalty would most certainly increase the cost of the average Life Sentence were this plea bargain no longer available.

Quote:
My biggest problem, which I feel needs some major changing is our laws. If someone intentionally takes another life, they should do life and life should be just what it says "life" with no chance of ever getting out.
Murderers should rot in jail for the rest of their living days, period!
But what about the 18 year old thief who's repeatedly bullied, raped, and heinously tortured by the convicted murderer who has nothing left to lose? How about the guards and prisoners who can be killed by convicted murderers? I think you might waver if you considered that a convicted murderer can be like a bully to the 100th power with impunity without the Death Penalty. And that they don't "rot" in prison anyway. That would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 03:10 am
Always nice to see you as well (((((((Bill))))))), but I must disagree. From everything I've seen and read, my responses are very true.
The cost of executing someone alone is not what generates the cost. It's all the court appeals, which last for years, that generates that cost. I did do the research on this back 5 years ago, so I'm truly not pulling this stuff out of a hat.

I've known all too many people who have been in prison and believe me when I tell you, not one of them ever wanted to go back or had one pleasant thing to say about their experiences there.
I use to go to AA meetings with my ex and they all laughed and made jokes about the devistation their drinking caused in their lives, but I've never heard an ex con joke about their time in prison, although, I did hear some horror stories. It's not a nice place and I can't even imagine spending the rest of my life there

About the murderers doing life thing, of course I didn't mean anyone who is in a position to defend themselves. A woman has a legal right to kill a man who tries to rape her, so the same thing apply to a man.
Self defense is a whole different ballgame Bill ;-)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Too crazy to be executed? - Discussion by joefromchicago
A case to end the death penalty - Discussion by gungasnake
Death Penalty Drugs - Question by HesDeltanCaptain
Cyanide Pill - Question by gollum
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/06/2022 at 01:56:11