15
   

The least cruel method of execution?

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 06:06 pm
@JTT,
Further demonstration of your idiocy, Remora. You called me a hypocrite for speaking out about Joe's nonsensical advocacy of punitive torture. Until you show where I was ever endorsed punitive torture; you will continue to look like the trolling idiot you are. Prove your charge, retract it, or revel in your obvious idiocy.

JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 06:12 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Speaking of obtuse, Bill, you continue to avoid the central issue I raised and have raised a number of times.

That it's deliberate makes it all that much the worse. Change your signature line, then at least, your hypocrisy won't be so blatant.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 06:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Death Penalty should be reserved for those cases considered truly horrendous, and for which an overwhelming amount of evidence is available; and it should be rare.


such as the guy that kidnapped, raped and buried alive that little girl in florida. if that doesn't merit the ultimate disposal, i don't know what does.

but i agree with you that some have been wrongfully executed and we should be absolutely sure and careful about delivering the death penalty.

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 06:42 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
You called me a hypocrite for speaking out about Joe's nonsensical advocacy of punitive torture.


Did I really, Bill? If you'd be so kind as to point that out, I'll proffer an apology forthwith.

0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 07:45 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Nor is that my argument. Nor could anyone not being deliberately obtuse pretend it is. Heinousness of the crime has no bearing on likelihood of recidivism; it has an enormous bearing on whether or not the risk of recidivism is acceptable.

You're joking, right? I mean, this must be some kind of prank. Nobody in their right mind could honestly hold that position. Someone killed in a heinous manner and someone killed in a routine, run-of-the-mill manner are equally dead. Is the victim killed in a non-heinous manner supposed to take comfort in the fact that it could have been worse?

In any event, your new tack here is inconsistent with your previous argument that the death penalty is designed to halt recidivism. As you said:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
We've also learned that violent A-holes tend to reoffend. We’ve learned that the behavior tends to be passed from generation to generation (perhaps the worst horror of all.) Finally; we've learned that there is only one sure way to prevent recidivism.


And again:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Put short; torture would affect the recidivism rate not one iota, so there is nothing half-way about the application of the Death Penalty. While you can provide not one example of an innocent person being put to death by the state in recent times (proven beyond a reasonable doubt); I can provide a plethora of examples of recidivism that could easily have been prevented by the application of the death penalty.


And one more:

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.) 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.

But that's no longer your position, is it? You're not really interested in halting recidivism, you're interested in halting heinous recidivism. But then that must mean you believe all murderers are equally likely to commit more murders -- it's just that the heinous ones are not worth the risk.

So that throws out your anti-recidivism argument entirely. If the death penalty were justifiable on the grounds that it prevents future murders, it should be applied equally to all murderers, not just the heinous ones. You want to execute heinous murderers, but that's not because they might kill again. After all, non-heinous murderers are equally likely to kill again. As you yourself put it: "Heinousness of the crime has no bearing on likelihood of recidivism." Instead, you want to kill heinous murderers because there's something about the act of heinous murder itself that merits capital punishment and that sets it apart from regular old murders.

That's fair -- I'm sure that's a position that lots of people take. But it's not the same as saying that capital punishment is a "more effective method of preventing recidivism." What you have to do now is explain what it is about heinous murder that sets it apart from regular, non-heinous murder. It can't be that you want to halt recidivism, because then you'd be arguing in favor of executing all murderers, heinous and otherwise, alike. Furthermore, you must provide a reason that comports with the proper goals of punishment.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Further; anyone who believes a prisoner would refrain from murdering his cellmate or a guard because the words "without parole" were attached to the end of his sentence is an idiot. Why are you pretending to be an idiot Joe?

Ooh, ooh, STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN! Dammit, where's that emoticon that is pointing a finger at you and shouting "STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!" Show me where I said that a prisoner would refrain from murdering someone in prison because he had been sentenced to life without parole.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 09:37 pm
@joefromchicago,
My argument has changed not one iota, Joe. Nor, apparently, has your intention to pretend you're too dense to understand it. I don't believe for one moment that a single soul is buying your idiotic misinterpretation of my position. No one is really that stupid.

DOJ stats leave no room for doubt that violent criminals tend to re-offend. Since violent crimes present a danger to us all; preventing heinous criminal's recidivism is a perfectly logical goal and it so follows that preventing the most heinous acts recidivism are the most important. Only a complete idiot would have trouble understanding that position, whether they support capital punishment as a means of prevention or not. Why do you continue to pretend you are that idiot?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 11:07 pm
The prohibition was and is against CRUELTY;
it did not require that capital punishment be 100% painless.

Having said that,
I imagine a gunshot thru the medula oblongata 'd be painless n fast.
I 've never tested this, but according to the US Army,
a knife in either kidney is supposed to be instantly effective.
Then there is the matter of boxing his ears; (don 't try this at home, kids).

Possibly, u might let the guy get drunk,
or on some recreational drug,
anesthetize him and exsanguinate him.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 04:57 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Evidently, you no longer want to respond directly to my points -- or even to one of them. That's ok, I understand. If I didn't have a cogent argument I'd hide behind insults and appeals for pity too. The only surprise is that you haven't just said "it has been demonstrated" and declare victory, like Okie. I suspect you're holding that devastating retort in reserve.

But perhaps before you go off in a total snit, you can at least reply to one question: If you're not in favor of executing all convicted murderers, but only those who have committed heinous murders, then what punishment would you give to non-heinous murderers?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 09:07 pm
Re: OCCOM BILL (Post 3529466)
Quote:
You called me a hypocrite for speaking out about Joe's nonsensical advocacy of punitive torture.


Quote:
Did I really, Bill? If you'd be so kind as to point that out, I'll proffer an apology forthwith.


Have you located it yet, Bill?



0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 03:04 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Evidently, you no longer want to respond directly to my points -- or even to one of them. That's ok, I understand. If I didn't have a cogent argument I'd hide behind insults and appeals for pity too. The only surprise is that you haven't just said "it has been demonstrated" and declare victory, like Okie. I suspect you're holding that devastating retort in reserve.

Rolling Eyes You’ve fooled no one with your absurd (feigned) inability to understand my points, and you’ve bored the **** out of me. I have no interest in defending positions I don’t hold nor repeatedly clarifying while you play your idiotic game of pretending you’re not smart enough to understand the obvious. If this were your normal level of discourse; you’d be as worthy of Ignore as the Remora you’ve thus far behaved like here.

joefromchicago wrote:
But perhaps before you go off in a total snit, you can at least reply to one question: If you're not in favor of executing all convicted murderers, but only those who have committed heinous murders, then what punishment would you give to non-heinous murderers?
I’m thinking if I were to write the Law and sentencing guidelines; Life without Parole would not exist. There would be a long list of aggravating factors to first degree murder/capital offense, as well as ways to promote second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, first degree DV, to first degree murder/capital offenses, as well as a list of special circumstances to allow for deviation to lesser degrees. As much as possible; I’d like to see mandatory sentencing guidelines that left very little to the discretion of judges, juries or even prosecutors. All offenders who met the well defined criteria for first degree murder/capital offense would face the death penalty. No other penalty would exceed 20 years without enhancements.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 07:09 am

maybe hurling them off a really hi cliff
or a very hi edifice
( but u shud be careful of who or what is below )
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 07:15 am

Possibly, u coud hurl them out of a hi flying heliocopter;
maybe put them into a catapult.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 09:21 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Rolling Eyes You’ve fooled no one with your absurd (feigned) inability to understand my points, and you’ve bored the **** out of me. I have no interest in defending positions I don’t hold nor repeatedly clarifying while you play your idiotic game of pretending you’re not smart enough to understand the obvious. If this were your normal level of discourse; you’d be as worthy of Ignore as the Remora you’ve thus far behaved like here.

Oh spare us.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I’m thinking if I were to write the Law and sentencing guidelines; Life without Parole would not exist. There would be a long list of aggravating factors to first degree murder/capital offense, as well as ways to promote second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, first degree DV, to first degree murder/capital offenses, as well as a list of special circumstances to allow for deviation to lesser degrees. As much as possible; I’d like to see mandatory sentencing guidelines that left very little to the discretion of judges, juries or even prosecutors. All offenders who met the well defined criteria for first degree murder/capital offense would face the death penalty. No other penalty would exceed 20 years without enhancements.

I'm not sure how that would work. You've divided the universe of murderers into heinous and non-heinous (for the sake of simplicity we'll ignore other heinous crimes for the moment). You have said that you would sentence heinous murderers to death. Presumably, that means that non-heinous murderers would not get a capital sentence.

Now, however, you're saying that all first-degree murderers should be executed. But the dividing line between first-degree murder and something less (like second-degree murder or manslaughter) is not heinousness, it's premeditation. Saying that you would put all first-degree murderers to death isn't the same thing as saying that you would put all heinous murderers to death. Some heinous murders aren't premeditated, and some premeditated murders aren't heinous. So there's an inconsistency here, unless you're saying that all premeditated murders are, by virtue of that fact, heinous. Is that what you're saying? Or is there a class of murders that, because they are premeditated, would qualify as first-degree murder but would not merit the death penalty because they are non-heinous? And if there is such a class, are you suggesting that persons convicted of these crimes should be sentenced to no more than twenty years in prison, disregarding any sentence enhancements?
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 09:59 am
Well any form of execution is the least cruel if you're getting pounded in the ass every day by 4 guys who call themselves "The Ladies".....
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 10:02 am
@Bella Dea,
Very Happy

i can tell you the cruelest form of execution, reading this entire thread and dying of boredom
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 10:11 am
@djjd62,
bullhit. executing someone witha firing quad costs at leats 100 dollars max.

they already paid for the guns, and the ammo should be way less than 100 dollars.

3.wshatever million dollars my ass, thats whats wrong with this ******* country, paper paper paper red tape, oh man lets milk the government for more money for some stupid ****, gee effing gee, AMMO and thats it, plus court costs i guess?

3 million dollars to fuicking kill someone, you could kill like 1000 non-americans with that!

ffs...
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 10:12 am
@OGIONIK,
if i ever commit a crime im making sure to get the death entence, just to waste everyones ******* money.


i say firing squad, one headshot its done.


unless they cant aim or are scared of killing you like stated earlier.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:11 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I’m thinking if I were to write the Law and sentencing guidelines; Life without Parole would not exist. There would be a long list of aggravating factors to first degree murder/capital offense, as well as ways to promote second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, first degree DV, to first degree murder/capital offenses, as well as a list of special circumstances to allow for deviation to lesser degrees. As much as possible; I’d like to see mandatory sentencing guidelines that left very little to the discretion of judges, juries or even prosecutors. All offenders who met the well defined criteria for first degree murder/capital offense would face the death penalty. No other penalty would exceed 20 years without enhancements.

I'm not sure how that would work. You've divided the universe of murderers into heinous and non-heinous (for the sake of simplicity we'll ignore other heinous crimes for the moment). You have said that you would sentence heinous murderers to death. Presumably, that means that non-heinous murderers would not get a capital sentence.

Now, however, you're saying that all first-degree murderers should be executed. But the dividing line between first-degree murder and something less (like second-degree murder or manslaughter) is not heinousness, it's premeditation. Saying that you would put all first-degree murderers to death isn't the same thing as saying that you would put all heinous murderers to death. Some heinous murders aren't premeditated, and some premeditated murders aren't heinous. So there's an inconsistency here, unless you're saying that all premeditated murders are, by virtue of that fact, heinous. Is that what you're saying? Or is there a class of murders that, because they are premeditated, would qualify as first-degree murder but would not merit the death penalty because they are non-heinous? And if there is such a class, are you suggesting that persons convicted of these crimes should be sentenced to no more than twenty years in prison, disregarding any sentence enhancements?
Still pretending you don't get it, eh Joe? WTF is so fun about that? On the outside chance you're inability to get it is real; I'll clarify further:
I previously wrote:
I’m thinking if I were to write the Law and sentencing guidelines; Life without Parole would not exist. There would be a long list of aggravating factors to first degree murder/capital offense.
This alters the meaning of "first degree" in the same way "felony murder" enhancements work in many states. For example’s sake only; here’s a list of aggravating factors from Alabama.

Example 1: Man shoots cashier while robbing a convenience store. The state need not prove he went into that store planning to kill the clerk. That he went in planning to rob the store and that he did indeed shoot the clerk is sufficient to move to first degree/capital offense. No premeditation of the actual murder is required to meet First Degree/Capital Offense standards in this scenario.

Example 2: Man accidentally kills child during commission of Child Molestation. The State need not prove premeditation of murder or even intent to commit murder to meet First Degree/Capital Offense standards in this scenario.

Example 3: Man beats his girlfriend to death during a fight. Man has a history of DV, or rape, kidnapping, etc. Even though the unplanned, “heat of the moment”, attack would fit the definition of voluntary manslaughter in a vacuum, the aggravating factor of his history of violence would promote this crime to First Degree/Capital Offense, again, without premeditation or intent being required.

I previously also wrote:
as well as a list of special circumstances to allow for deviation to lesser degrees.


Example 1: Man lays in wait, locked and loaded, for the man who raped his child to appear at his home, then proceeds to execute him on the spot. In a vacuum; the pre-meditation and obvious intent would serve the requirements for first degree murder. However; in consideration of the fact that the victim had previously committed a heinous act against his child serves as a special circumstance, which in this case should demote this crime away from First Degree/Capital Offense to a second degree or voluntary manslaughter charge.

Example 2: Woman shoots husband in the head with a gun she’d recently purchased and hid in her nightstand. Husband comes home drunk and belligerent, behaving in the same manner he has many times before when he had committed marital rape, beatings etc. This time she decides to put a bullet in his head before he even gets a chance. Although she did hide that gun there to use against her husband in advance, and did intend to kill him when she put one between his eyes; the special circumstance of having good reason to believe she was in danger is sufficient to demote this otherwise premeditated, intentional homicide from First Degree/Capital Offense. Since she was not yet in imminent danger, and gave no warning at all, she’s obviously guilty of a crime; but not first degree murder.

In the two examples above; neither the crimes of man who kills his child’s rapist nor the woman who kills her abusive husband indicate the level of depraved indifference to the life and liberty of the innocent (heinousness)… which is clearly indicated in the three examples of murders with aggravating factors listed above them. Hence, the presumed threat of recidivism isn’t comparable.

He who kills for an understandable reason (even if not legally justifiable) is not the same threat as he who kills indiscriminately, preys on the innocent, or has a demonstrated history of violence.

And yes: I am saying those not convicted of First Degree/Capital Offenses should be sentenced to no more than twenty years in prison, disregarding any sentence enhancements. I do not believe that any meaningful rehabilitation begins in the 20th year of a prison sentence.

joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:27 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Still pretending you don't get it, eh Joe? WTF is so fun about that?

Give it a rest.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
On the outside chance you're inability to get it is real; I'll clarify further:
I previously wrote:
I’m thinking if I were to write the Law and sentencing guidelines; Life without Parole would not exist. There would be a long list of aggravating factors to first degree murder/capital offense.
This alters the meaning of "first degree" in the same way "felony murder" enhancements work in many states. For example’s sake only; here’s a list of aggravating factors from Alabama.

Well, those aren't examples of the difference between first degree murder and something less (e.g. second degree murder or manslaughter). Those are examples of first degree murders that qualify for the death sentence. As the statute you cite states:
Quote:
Except as specifically provided to the contrary in the last part of subdivision (a)(13) of this section, the terms "murder" and "murder by the defendant" as used in this section to define capital offenses mean murder as defined in section 13A-6-2(a)(1), but not as defined in section 13A-6-2(a)(2) and (3).

Those sections make it clear that the only persons subject to the death sentence are those who committed a premeditated murder (Alabama evidently doesn't have grades of murder, but a 13A-6-2(a)(1) murder is equivalent to first degree murder in other states).

Look, I understand the distinction between grades of murder. Indeed, it's clear that I understand it better than you do. I know that there are aggravating factors that can make a first degree murderer "death eligible." That's not the "dividing line" that I've been talking about. Rather, I'm interested in the dividing line between "heinous" murders (whatever those are) and "non-heinous" murders. If you're saying that heinous murders are just first degree murders that also have some aggravating factors thrown in, then that's fine, I have no problems understanding that. That's pretty much what the law is now. I know you want more aggravating factors considered -- that's fine too. I also don't have any problem understanding that. On the other hand, if you're saying that all first degree murders are "heinous," then you'll have to explain that a little better, since that's not what you've been saying up to this point.

Where you run into a bigger problem is in the fact that you want to kill some murderers while letting others go free, even though you've said that there is no difference in the chances of recidivism for heinous murderers and non-heinous murderers. In other words, you'll kill the heinous ones but let the non-heinous ones go free after twenty years or so, even though the non-heinous ones are just as likely to kill again -- just not heinously, you hope.

Well, if that's the case, that throws your entire anti-recidivism rationale out the window. I mean, how can you claim that you want to keep murderers from killing again when you're willing to let so many of them out of jail?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
In the two examples above; neither the crimes of man who kills his child’s rapist nor the woman who kills her abusive husband indicate the level of depraved indifference to the life and liberty of the innocent (heinousness)… which is clearly indicated in the three examples of murders with aggravating factors listed above them. Hence, the presumed threat of recidivism isn’t comparable.

But that is directly contrary to what you wrote before:

OCCOM BILL previously wrote:
Heinousness of the crime has no bearing on likelihood of recidivism

Now, however, you're saying that level of heinousness (or depraved indifference -- in your usage, the two are synonymous) is related to likelihood of recidivism. Well, which is it?
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 02:01 pm
@joefromchicago,
There you go feigning idiocy again, Joe. There is no contradiction there whatsoever, and your pretending there is will fool no one. He who kills for no reasonably understandable purpose presents a greater threat of recidivism that he who kills with a reasonably understandable purpose... because said circumstance is infinitely less likely to recur. Any child of average intelligence could understand this point, but you're still pretending you can't... which means you're still acting like a ******* idiot and I'm still bored. If you'd like me to discuss my points further; address them with some indication you're trying to understand them, rather than twist them into something they're not. Until then; discussion with you is as useless as it is boring.
 

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 12:26:28