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.
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.
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.
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.)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.
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.
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 F@@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".
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!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 wrote:
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.
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.
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.
That was a demented joke 5 years ago and remains so. It is also nonresponsive... probably because the truth is so patently obvious.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.
Really Joe? That's what you're going with? Pretty pathetic.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.
Hey gang
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!
