The Texecutioner

[Botellines 0]

Quote

I like it. But you'd never get those that believe in "fairnes" and harshness" to suport it.

You would be surprise. No one likes murderers or rapist or scum like that. And no one has any simpathy for them. As someone said in this thread, you can always think of a crime against your beloved ones that will make your blood boil and would make you want to kill whoever did it. Most people against capital punishment will argue that it is unacceptable the risk of killing an innocent. No one will say that the criminal doesn´t deserve the punishment. So my guess is that most anti cap-pun will be willing to do it.

Quote

Quote

Would you ban death penalty under this terms?

No.

Why? considering it hasn´t been prooved to work as a deterrent and that revenge is not politically correct, can you share your reasons?

[Ron 10]

Quote

I am still waiting for those facts that support your opinion. I don't even care how old they are.

I am still waitiing for yours since you brought up cost first.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Careful with those generalizations. I fully support putting prisoners to work

You are not a typical liberal. You support the 2nd.

Liberals over all would not allow it.

Ask at your next meeting to take over the world

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Wasn't meant to sound humane

So how is putting a person to death anyless humane, than forcing them to live in solitude like a caged animal? What about their "inhearant, and inalienable rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or are you ok with being selective about which of those rights you deny them?

Quote

If a person has no interaction with another human, it will be hard to commit murder.

But not impossible?

Quote

Good for you, I doubt it is true for every body.

I speak for no one other than myself.

Hey, have fun with this....I'm going jumping now.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So how is putting a person to death anyless humane, than forcing them to live in solitude like a caged animal?

Having something is better than nothing. Is there no difference if the gov't taxes you 1/2 your salary or all of it? Would you rather have half your salary or none? There is nothing as inhumane as deliberately taking someone else's life. You can cope with anything else, or at least have a chance to try.

And once again, back to the issue of innocent people being punished accidentally. You can let them out of the cage. You can't resurrect them.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I am still waitiing for yours since you brought up cost first.

actually I didn't, but you can start here

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So how is putting a person to death anyless humane, than forcing them to live in solitude like a caged animal? What about their "inhearant, and inalienable rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or are you ok with being selective about which of those rights you deny them?

It can be reversed.

Quote

But not impossible?

Yes, impossible.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Having something is better than nothing.

Poor generalization. Would you rather be married in an abusive relationship, or be amone for the rest of your life?

Would you rather live as a vegatable?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Having something is better than nothing.

Poor generalization. Would you rather be married in an abusive relationship, or be amone for the rest of your life?

Would you rather live as a vegatable?

Fine, I'll be specific. Being alive in a cage is better than death. Especially if you're innocent and have a hope of reversal.

Quote

Would you rather live as a vegatable?

Yes, selfishly, I would rather live as a vegetable than be dead. There's a chance I can be revived as a vegetable. Once you're dead, you're dead. Out of concern for my family, I'd make a different choice. But that's not applicable here.

[Ron 10]

from one site

Quote

Counties pay $48.50 per prisoner per day in the regional jail.

177,025 per year. For a county.

Another site said 20,000 (The site was trying to remove jail time for Drug laws)

Another site said that it costs 31,500 for a Felon.

Here is some for older inmates

Quote

Ailments common to the middle-aged and seniors mean their care can cost up to $70,000 a year apiece, more than double the cost for younger inmates.

From the same site.

Quote

The state pays about $30,000 a year to care for the average inmate. Some of those at Hunt are “fast approaching” $70,000 annually, Lensing said.

OK, so a Felon (Who is what we are talking about) is about 30,000 a year till they are over 50 then its about 70,000.

Avg person lives to say 70.

30-50 600,000
50-70 1,400,000
2 million.

You can read this if you like http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

From that:

Quote

The most conclusive evidence that criminals fear the death penalty more than life without parole is provided by convicted capital murderers and their attorneys. 99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death, in the punishment phase of their trial. When the death penalty becomes real, murderers fear it the most.

The highest murder rate in Houston (Harris County), Texas occurred in 1981, with 701 murders. Texas resumed executions in 1982. Since that time, Houston (Harris County) has executed more murderers than any other city or state (except Texas) AND has seen the greatest reduction in murder, 701 in 1981 down to 261 in 1996 - a 63% reduction, representing a 270% differential! (FBI, UCR, 1982 & Houston Chronicle, 2/1/97, pg. 31A).

Seems to work.

Quote

D. THE COST OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE VS THE DEATH PENALTY

Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ("LWOP") at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6 million - than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP.
(1) The $34,200 is conservative, if TIME Magazine's (2/7/94) research is accurate. TIME found that, nationwide, the average cell cost is $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr. (as of 12/95). Opponents claim that LWOP should replace the DP. Therefore, any cost calculations should be based specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed the exact same category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are valid only if you compare the costs of DP-equivalent LWOP cases to the cost of DP cases. The $34,200/yr. cell cost assumes that only 20% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in maximum security cost cells and that 80% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in average cost cells. A very conservative estimate. The $60,000/yr., for those on death row, assumes that such cells will average a cost equal to 80% of the $75,000/yr. for the most expensive maximum security cells. A very high estimate. Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant.

I am sure that there are other sources that say otherwise.

Hence the problem.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,465]

The first part of your response doesn't take legal costs into account. Secondly I doubt the life expectancy of an inmate is equal to the national average.

Quote

The most conclusive evidence that criminals fear the death penalty more than life without parole is provided by convicted capital murderers and their attorneys. 99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death, in the punishment phase of their trial. When the death penalty becomes real, murderers fear it the most.

That's a joke right, you don't mean to bring that up as an actual argument do you? If they feared it so much, why did they commit the crime in the first place?

A statement of fact that starts with: there appears to be no questions, could hardly be considered a verified fact.

[Ron 10]

Quote

That's a joke right, you don't mean to bring that up as an actual argument do you? If they feared it so much, why did they commit the crime in the first place?

You seemed to ignore this part:

Quote

The highest murder rate in Houston (Harris County), Texas occurred in 1981, with 701 murders. Texas resumed executions in 1982. Since that time, Houston (Harris County) has executed more murderers than any other city or state (except Texas) AND has seen the greatest reduction in murder, 701 in 1981 down to 261 in 1996 - a 63% reduction, representing a 270% differential! (FBI, UCR, 1982 & Houston Chronicle, 2/1/97, pg. 31A).

I didn't want to select quotes, so I put the whole part in.

Quote

The first part of your response doesn't take legal costs into account. Secondly I doubt the life expectancy of an inmate is equal to the national average.

Legal costs for Capital crimes ARE higher than other cases. But they are also MUCH more serious. I bet ANY Murder case is more expensive than Jaywalking charges.

A good deal of the numbers presented for Capital punishment legal costs versus others include robbery and rape (Crimes that would NOT end in capital punishment) in the stats.

Either way I have never said that Capital cases legal costs are less. I said it costs less to incarcerate them for life vs the normal 8-10 years in a Capital Punishment case.

I don't have much problem with the high costs of the legal part...It is a serious crime with serious penalties either way.

Also as to age...They mention that the MIDLIFERS can cost that much. Thats 40yo's folks.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

That's a joke right, you don't mean to bring that up as an actual argument do you? If they feared it so much, why did they commit the crime in the first place?

Isn't that like saying to someone struggling through agoniziing AIDS therapy and treatment, "If you didn't fear dying so much, why did you contract HIV?" Of course, this is an argument that works both ways.

Still, aren't we losing track of something here? Let's go through the options of what it could be called under these aruments:

1) Capital restitution
2) Capital imprisonment
3) Capital rehabilitation
4) Capital reform
5) Capital reeducation
6) Capital cheapest-way-to-do-it
7) Capital punishment

All right. We see #7 is the correct answer. On it's face, it is not designed to keep the person off the streets, or to rehabilitate, or to do anything of that sort. It is designed to punish.

It is punishment. Yes, these convicts are being punished by death.

Let's quit making it something different than what it is - a punishment solely designed for its penal and punitive nature.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Isn't that like saying to someone struggling through agoniziing AIDS therapy and treatment, "If you didn't fear dying so much, why did you contract HIV?" Of course, this is an argument that works both ways.

Nope, one is a choice, the other is not, certainly not the same.

Quote

All right. We see #7 is the correct answer. On it's face, it is not designed to keep the person off the streets, or to rehabilitate, or to do anything of that sort. It is designed to punish.

Exactly and that act puts you into some pretty shady company on the world stage.

Many definiton of punishment incorporate wording to the effect of: designed to decrease future occurences, or along those lines. Punishment is, generally by definiton, designed to deter.

I have asked this question before, but have not gotten an asnwer. If the death penalty is such a deterrence and if the widespread ownership of guns is such a deterrence on crime...how come so many people are getting murdered in the US?

[lawrocket 3]

It's not called capital deterrence. It's called capital punishment.

Does punishment deter conduct? Yes, it does. I found out as a kid that if I stole something, I got whupped. The whuppin' was punishment for stealing something. Every time I stole something, I got whupped. You steal, you get whupped. Crime - punishment.

It also has a deterrent effect, when I got to thinking, "If I steal again, I'm gonna get whupped. I don't wanna get whupped, so I better not steal."

This is a desirable side effect of punishment - the deterrent factor. But, make no mistake, the primary purpose is punishment.

The rest of the world views it with disgust? It puts us in some pretty shady company? Yeah, I guess so. Point being?

Quote

If the death penalty is such a deterrence and if the widespread ownership of guns is such a deterrence on crime...how come so many people are getting murdered in the US?

See above. It should operate as a deterrent, but if it does not deter, then it should operate for it's primary purpose, which is punishment.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

It's a Canadian website.

Tell me again why Americans should give a fuck, flying or otherwise, about what Canadians think of our internal matters?

[slug 1]

Affirmative

Except when you was a kid you knew that after you got caught you were going to be punished by daddy as soon as he got home.

With capital crimes punishment isn't that swift or sure. Plea bargin, turn gov't witness, good lawyer etc, asppeals process etc.

A sentence of LWOP in my opinion is worse than death. But if we take DP off the table will a swift sentence of LWOP be more of a deterent. .

A sure thing of a living death sould be enough of a deterent except for the people that are confused/evil. Nothing will be a deterent for them. So they get LWOP quickly.

R.I.P.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

But I also support the death penalty for the convicted. I agree with the comment on removing the criminal from the public permanently. I just think it is a waste of everyone's money if they stay in prison for life anyway.
Eye for an Eye sounds good to me.

What about if that inmate was jailed and forced to work his ass off for the rest of his life. The money he would be making would be to cover his expenses (no work= no food. If he dies for not eating, it would be suicide) and the rest to repay the family of his victim. It would be much cheaper for the taxpayer that normal life term or execution, victims would get compensations, and (very important) if it is found later that he was innocent, the state can attempt to compensate him. Everybody wins.

Would you ban death penalty under this terms?

Welcome to Facist America; it's been that way for years. Oh, you can get out for 1 hour per week to shower, or you can work for 25 cents per hour while you make some corporation thousands of dollars per year. So we're already there.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

There is NO reason for it except revenge.

Try justice.

Forty-two

[champu 1]

Quote

I don't see any added gratification in killing her. I would feel gratification that she got caught, that the justice system worked and that she will spend the rest of her life in jail. Which I am sure her fellow inmates will not make the most pleasant of environments.

While there's little, if anything, in this world that is black and white, I simply can not stand it when people draw arbitrary lines in the sand and stand behind them so adamantly, all while saying "please ignore what's going on behind me."

What unpleasantries might these fellow inmates conduct? Beatings? Rape? Correct me if I'm getting the wrong impression, but it sounds like you condone this as a form of punishment, yet you criticize the death penalty as being too permanent.

If your whole argument is against collateral damage, then I'll tell you something. I'd rather see an innocent person die by lethal injection than see an innocent person sentenced to life in a prison where they are left at the whim of other inmates.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

I realize you don't want to admit that, but when, let's say Bush ignores the entire death warrant but the signature block, that means execution presented by the county to the governor will not be scrutinized, hence a fair investigation/trial is not neccessary.

You fail to understand that the County's involvement with this fundamentally ceases at the trial court level. Why not look at ome examples of that from the site:

You have probably never had any experience with trial or appellate courts. If you did you would realize the process isn't compulsory except for the first level in capital cases. Don't think for a minute the justices are painstakingly mulling over these cases, in fact, they hear only a minute percentage of cases and even if they do hear them they have no responsibility to act any given way. Don't act as if these appeals get the attention they should have.

1) The first three executions were federal. Tried by some lowly US attorney.

99% of all executions over the last century, or something around there, have been state executions, not federal. These were the executions to which I was referring.

2) Miguel Flores - appealed through the state and federal courts all the way to the US Supreme. Review outside of the counties.

Was it heard by the US Sup Ct? It doesn't have to be you know. The US Sup Ct certifies via Writ of Certiorari about 150 cases per year, civil and criminal, so not all capital cases are heard, they are just summarily refused attention. The understanding of appeals by laypersons is a giant misunderstanding; virtually all appeals get summarily pitched. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an appeal to the US Sup Ct. These appeals are endless and prisoners have limitless rights to submit these. However, the odds that pro per Habeas gets any attention are about as likely as the Red Sox winning the series; it will happen once a century, but that's about it.

3) Oliver Cruz - the US Supreme Court allowed the Execution to proceed.

OK, was the case heard and affirmed, or ignored?

4) Brian Roberson - appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Ok. Was it heard?

5) Jessy Carlos San Miguel - the writing on him points to a statement of error that Bush said on June 6, 2000, where he said, "As I understand the facts, there is no question that the man did the crime. It's the penalty phase that needs to be examined. I think the system is working." He also said, "What the attorney general is saying is, 'Let's make sure we review all cases to make sure that everybody in this case gets a fair hearing.'"

"As I understand the facts" What does that mean; what the AG told Bush is good enough? You seem to lay great stock in the research of facts by a guy that obviously is enamored with the death penalty. Why in that case did Bush state the case needs to have the penalty phase examined? Has Bush ever once overturned a death sentence or commuted anyone's sentence? Has he ever freed an obviously innocent prisoner?

So, what we see is that review is being made by courts nationwide, and Bush stating that the attorney general is reviewing these matters. So your point is therefore disproven, is it not?

No, it's not disproved. State what anyone has done to investigate these cases other than lip service. Governor Ryan of Illinois was being told by some private groups (who did extensive research) that atrocities are being done under the purview of state-sanctioned murder. He told the state prosecutors to quit the crap, they didn't quit, and he commuted everyone off of death row and completely exonerated a few from their crimes. Do you think ALL Texas convictions were legitimate? Uh, huh. You're using lip service from a scumbag that loves to kill people as support for your refutation. Did they talk about what they did to investigate?

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Ok, sonce you are unwilling to just answer, then let me formally ask you in the form of a question.

Same applies, although I don't want to be narrow-minded about it and refer to only one person.

1. So are you saying because there are bastards that need to die, and there are, that we should kill innocent people too?

It must have hurt your virgin eyes to read me call a murderer a bastard. I'm so sorry, I hope it doesn't forever scar you. Let's see, you advocate killing people for revenge, yet you are offended when I call a murderer that you would condemn, a bastard. Okee-dokee.

2.If so, you sound like McVeigh when he referred to collateral damage in regard to the innocent people he killed when he killed whatever agents he was after. REACTION.....

What's the matter, can't answer this one????? Yepper.

I spoke only of killing Faye. An INDIVIDUAL! I did not call them a "bastard", something I have no knowlage of. Nothing about mass killing of innocents which is something you added to the convesation.

No, I was simply comparing your logic to that of McVeigh's in regard to his stance on killing a bunch of innocent people to get to the ones he wanted to. It's very comparable, unless a person is so brilliant to think that no innocent people ever get executed.


BTW, you are sensationalizing what I have to say. You don't happen to be in media do you?

And then...

Where do you get this shit. Stay on topic MAN!

Uh, hum.... See your statement above.

Do NOT compare me to anyone else.[/b[

You have some phobia of people speaking for you or being compared to other people. Well, you are just like the group of people here that have an opinion, but are unable to defend it. I love the former; abhor the latter.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

right that should have been inherent and inalienable

There is no such thing.

I understand that you're not super concerned about proper quoting, but in order to keep your point in context, you should quote the entire sentence, mabe paragraph. Then if you wish, extract your partial sentence and place, "..." on either end as appropriate. I have no idea of the context from which this came. But as a stand-alone statement, there are such things as inherent an inalienable. Post the rest and teh context.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Because we are making cogent arguments rather than simple one-liners.

Being verbose does not make one right. Much of the semantic content of this website is null. Are those that post alot any more right than one that posts infrequently?

Ron has made a somple point. Others have clouded the conversation with rhetoric, and assumption.

And you have yet to address the substantive issues of killing innocent people, but as all the other people just like you, and that you are just like, it is virtually impossible to admit the obvious and still remain human.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you see how critical thinking works? If you would like, I can provide cites for each piece of the supporting claims I've made.

Now give me your one-liner response instead of answer each point.

Just cause you can justify your opinion based on personal feelings doen NOT change anything.

The Constitution is over 200 years old...So I guess its not something you credit either?

Facts are facts no matter how old they are, or what war the were before.

Some critical thinking

You posted:

http://www.dropzone.com/...post=1381251#1381251

Thats pretty bad when you can just discount a cite since you just don't like it.

Just like you are doing here.

I posted

Right, and I didn't summarily discount it, I fully addressed the circa from which it was written and explained why I think it doesn't contemporarily fit whatsoever.

"Theodore Roosevelt Advocates Americanism, 1915"

This was a cite from Theodore Roosevelt from 1915, which, as I explained, was a time of war to say the very least. Then you start to understand the protocol of the government and general social climate in the early 1900's and you understand why I think it's not applicable to us now. Furthermore, he was a Republican too, whatever that's worth.

The main point with the cite was that Teddy Roosevelt didn't like name hyphenations denoting origin and thought it created divide. I refuted that by saying with the protocol of America with women not even having the right to vote, that I find the cite obsolete by today's standard.

Now, if you wanted to be intellectual, you would argue why Roosevelt's statements are contemporarily valid and that they do apply, hence name-origin hyphens should not be used, just as Roosevelt stated.

In that post I wrote:

That's dated 1915, which places us at the start of WWI. Women hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote, and slavery was just abolished 52 years prior, even though forms of it were still in place for some decades later. We hadn't even seen Japanese-American internment or having seperate public restrooms and fountains, that kind of racism was too advanced for us meaning we were far worse that that in 1915. Antimiscegination laws allowed for the deportation of women that married non-white males were still in place too. So to think that in the middle of a major world war, and with civil rights meaning linchings were the soup de jour, I hardly recognize your reference as anything but an interesting piece of nostalgia.

So this reference is moot to me.

Points I use to support:

1. That's dated 1915, which places us at the start of WWI.
2. Women hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote.
3. Slavery was just abolished 52 years prior
4. We hadn't even seen Japanese-American internment
5. Having separate public restrooms and fountains
6. That kind of racism was too advanced for us meaning we were far worse that that in 1915.
7. Antimiscegination laws allowed for the deportation of women that married non-white males were still in place too.

THEREFORE.... "I hardly recognize your reference as anything but an interesting piece of nostalgia. So this reference is moot to me.

Do you see how critical thinking works? If you would like, I can provide cites for each piece of the supporting claims I've made.

Now give me your one-liner response instead of answer each point.


And now you're still running from all of it. Just answer these.




Just cause you can justify your opinion based on personal feelings doen NOT change anything.

No, these are hard historical facts. Would you like cites for the following:

1. That's dated 1915, which places us at the start of WWI.
2. Women hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote.
3. Slavery was just abolished 52 years prior
4. We hadn't even seen Japanese-American internment
5. Having separate public restrooms and fountains
6. That kind of racism was too advanced for us meaning we were far worse that that in 1915.
7. Antimiscegination laws allowed for the deportation of women that married non-white males were still in place too.

Or would you just like to continue to avoid them and keep moving toward Ad Hominem.

Facts are facts no matter how old they are, or what war the were before.
Right, and I disputed the contemporary application of the posted words by Teddy Roosevelt based upon the fact that basic human and civil rights weren't then what they are today, hence not applicable in this topic. Please, go back and explain how that article is applicable and refute my historical facts I've posted.

The Constitution is over 200 years old...So I guess its not something you credit either?

Well, it is very vague and continual reinterpretation was in the writing for it. When it was written we were almost 100 years from the 13th Amendment, stopping slavery. I could go on and on, but the US Const, in its origial writing isn't very contemporary either, which is why they continually reinterpret it. OK, you don't like it, great, that's how they've done it since the writing of it - you're right, everyone's wrong.