The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world. The death penalty was never meant as revenge or a deterrent, it's about justice and accountability. Many states have found it nearly impossible to secure drugs for lethal injections, hence why methods like the electric chair and firing squads are making a comeback. The only fault of the death penalty is that it takes too long to administer.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world.

How is that defined or established?

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world.

Based on what metric?

On a totally unrelated note I have decided to start a popcorn business.

Fred

ReverseFlow wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world.

How is that defined or established?

Just the way it is! You are innocent till proven guilty, you cannot be forced to self incriminate. Our justice system is strongly slanted to protecting the guilty, accused until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are convicted you are given the chance to endless appeals. Most other countries you are not given these liberties.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world.

How is that defined or established?

Just the way it is! You are innocent till proven guilty, you cannot be forced to self incriminate. Our justice system is strongly slanted to protecting the guilty, accused until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are convicted you are given the chance to endless appeals. Most other countries you are not given these liberties.

Do you know the justice systems of other countries to have that comparison?

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world. The death penalty was never meant as revenge or a deterrent, it's about justice and accountability. Many states have found it nearly impossible to secure drugs for lethal injections, hence why methods like the electric chair and firing squads are making a comeback. The only fault of the death penalty is that it takes too long to administer.

Cool story bro. Though I am sure there are probably a few wrongfully convicted people in the US - some sentenced to death - who would strongly disagree with you.

Believe it or not, other countries base their justice systems on innocent proven guilty, and provide for appeals - so the US is not an outlier in that respect. But yeh, cool story.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world. The death penalty was never meant as revenge or a deterrent, it's about justice and accountability. Many states have found it nearly impossible to secure drugs for lethal injections, hence why methods like the electric chair and firing squads are making a comeback. The only fault of the death penalty is that it takes too long to administer.

You conveniently ignored responding to my question about all the people exonerated from death row. How do you even begin to justify the death penalty when 190 people (and that's just since 1973) have been incorrectly given the death penalty? If you had your way, they'd have all been illegally killed.

Please explain how you justify your stance on capital punishment.

scbriml wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world. The death penalty was never meant as revenge or a deterrent, it's about justice and accountability. Many states have found it nearly impossible to secure drugs for lethal injections, hence why methods like the electric chair and firing squads are making a comeback. The only fault of the death penalty is that it takes too long to administer.

You conveniently ignored responding to my question about all the people exonerated from death row. How do you even begin to justify the death penalty when 190 people (and that's just since 1973) have been incorrectly given the death penalty? If you had your way, they'd have all been illegally killed.

Please explain how you justify your stance on capital punishment.

You are forgetting the ones who were properly convicted and executed as the proof the system working. Those who were exonerated in appeals is also proof our justice system works. We need to streamline the appeals and have them done much quicker. There is ZERO evidence an innocent person was ever executed. As technology as advanced, with DNA the chances of wrongful convction is almost zero

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world. The death penalty was never meant as revenge or a deterrent, it's about justice and accountability. Many states have found it nearly impossible to secure drugs for lethal injections, hence why methods like the electric chair and firing squads are making a comeback. The only fault of the death penalty is that it takes too long to administer.

This really does read like agnorant US exceptionalism.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

scbriml wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world. The death penalty was never meant as revenge or a deterrent, it's about justice and accountability. Many states have found it nearly impossible to secure drugs for lethal injections, hence why methods like the electric chair and firing squads are making a comeback. The only fault of the death penalty is that it takes too long to administer.

You conveniently ignored responding to my question about all the people exonerated from death row. How do you even begin to justify the death penalty when 190 people (and that's just since 1973) have been incorrectly given the death penalty? If you had your way, they'd have all been illegally killed.

Please explain how you justify your stance on capital punishment.

You are forgetting the ones who were properly convicted and executed as the proof the system working. Those who were exonerated in appeals is also proof our justice system works. We need to streamline the appeals and have them done much quicker. There is ZERO evidence an innocent person was ever executed. As technology as advanced, with DNA the chances of wrongful convction is almost zero

Turns out, you don't necessarily need evidence, just reasonable doubt.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-iss ... y-innocent

Plenty of cases there where the government got it wrong. Law enforcement doesn't work like CSI, there's not always clear cut physical evidence, it's complicated, and a lot of nuance gets lost in prosecutorial rhetoric.

Tons of people have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world. The death penalty was never meant as revenge or a deterrent, it's about justice and accountability. Many states have found it nearly impossible to secure drugs for lethal injections, hence why methods like the electric chair and firing squads are making a comeback. The only fault of the death penalty is that it takes too long to administer.

Again, you failed to answer my question. Some victims' families do not want the death penalty. What say you to them - too bad??

I didn't want both major political parties to give in 100% to the intel community and prosecute war in Iraq and another 10 years of proxy war in Yemen as a response to 9/11, but here we are.

skyservice_330 wrote:

Cool story bro. Though I am sure there are probably a few wrongfully convicted people in the US - some sentenced to death - who would strongly disagree with you.

Believe it or not, other countries base their justice systems on innocent proven guilty, and provide for appeals - so the US is not an outlier in that respect. But yeh, cool story.

I doubt it, the appeals system is too thorough when convicted of capital murder in the US. If you would like to provide a name of someone on death row who is innocent we can discuss it.

NIKV69 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

Cool story bro. Though I am sure there are probably a few wrongfully convicted people in the US - some sentenced to death - who would strongly disagree with you.

Believe it or not, other countries base their justice systems on innocent proven guilty, and provide for appeals - so the US is not an outlier in that respect. But yeh, cool story.

I doubt it, the appeals system is too thorough when convicted of capital murder in the US. If you would like to provide a name of someone on death row who is innocent we can discuss it.

Clever - we don’t know they’re innocent until they’re exonerated. But feel free to discuss any of the 190 people exonerated in the links I supplied earlier.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

scbriml wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world. The death penalty was never meant as revenge or a deterrent, it's about justice and accountability. Many states have found it nearly impossible to secure drugs for lethal injections, hence why methods like the electric chair and firing squads are making a comeback. The only fault of the death penalty is that it takes too long to administer.

You conveniently ignored responding to my question about all the people exonerated from death row. How do you even begin to justify the death penalty when 190 people (and that's just since 1973) have been incorrectly given the death penalty? If you had your way, they'd have all been illegally killed.

Please explain how you justify your stance on capital punishment.

You are forgetting the ones who were properly convicted and executed as the proof the system working. Those who were exonerated in appeals is also proof our justice system works. We need to streamline the appeals and have them done much quicker. There is ZERO evidence an innocent person was ever executed. As technology as advanced, with DNA the chances of wrongful convction is almost zero

Your “logic” is entirely backward here. Nearly 200 innocent people would have been illegally killed if you and the likes of others in this thread had their way with limited appeals and a quick execution. Your blind faith in a system that has proven to be fallible time and time again is misplaced. There have been so many cases where, predominantly black, undereducated men are convicted where the prosecution was corrupt - lying witnesses, evidence of innocence withheld, etc. Just because the system gets it right in the majority of cases, you can’t simply ignore all the times it gets it wrong. “Almost zero” just isn’t good enough when it comes to implementing a barbaric form of revenge.

I’m assuming you’re religious based on your amusing adherence to old testament thinking, yet you appear to be willing to throw innocent people under the bus in your bloody craving for revenge. Give me a straight answer: are you perfectly OK if an innocent person is executed for a crime they didn’t commit?

flipdewaf wrote:

“Man in charge in Oregan decides to stop using method of crime prevention that doesn’t work anyway”

The fact that the closest thing to justifying it in this thread was because a book about boy with no dad where the magic rib woman gets told to eat an apple by a talking snake says give as good as you get means that it’s clearly a pretty stupid way to deal with things.

Oh well, stupid is as stupid does.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some people who commit horrible crimes should be removed permanently, it's the right thing to do. I'd like to see you make a case for why Branton Tarrant and Anders Breivik shouldn't be executed.

scbriml wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

Cool story bro. Though I am sure there are probably a few wrongfully convicted people in the US - some sentenced to death - who would strongly disagree with you.

Believe it or not, other countries base their justice systems on innocent proven guilty, and provide for appeals - so the US is not an outlier in that respect. But yeh, cool story.

I doubt it, the appeals system is too thorough when convicted of capital murder in the US. If you would like to provide a name of someone on death row who is innocent we can discuss it.

Clever - we don’t know they’re innocent until they’re exonerated. But feel free to discuss any of the 190 people exonerated in the links I supplied earlier.

Sometimes mistakes a re made but when the guilty person is so guilty there is no possibility of their innocence why not put them down. We have video and manifestos from Tarrant and Breivik, they are 100% guilty, there is no reason for them to remain breathing.

Aaron747 wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world. The death penalty was never meant as revenge or a deterrent, it's about justice and accountability. Many states have found it nearly impossible to secure drugs for lethal injections, hence why methods like the electric chair and firing squads are making a comeback. The only fault of the death penalty is that it takes too long to administer.

Again, you failed to answer my question. Some victims' families do not want the death penalty. What say you to them - too bad??

I didn't want both major political parties to give in 100% to the intel community and prosecute war in Iraq and another 10 years of proxy war in Yemen as a response to 9/11, but here we are.

Some victims families are not all victims families.

Kiwirob wrote:

scbriml wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

I doubt it, the appeals system is too thorough when convicted of capital murder in the US. If you would like to provide a name of someone on death row who is innocent we can discuss it.

Clever - we don’t know they’re innocent until they’re exonerated. But feel free to discuss any of the 190 people exonerated in the links I supplied earlier.

Sometimes mistakes a re made but when the guilty person is so guilty there is no possibility of their innocence why not put them down. We have video and manifestos from Tarrant and Breivik, they are 100% guilty, there is no reason for them to remain breathing.

Here's a good reason, whenever someone in favor uses callous language about ending a human life like they're putting a horse out of their misery, maybe we should take pause.

Tons of innocent people in the United States were murdered or lynched for hundreds of years. Our justice system still seems to disproportionately try to execute minorities. Investigations are often poor or incomplete, and focus on the first "good suspect," hammering them with whatever evidence can be quickly acquired. There are at least a dozen cases of people who have actually been executed, murdered by the state, with credible exonerating evidence or good faith reasonable doubt, per the link I shared above.

Institutional murder is still murder.

bluecrew wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Clever - we don’t know they’re innocent until they’re exonerated. But feel free to discuss any of the 190 people exonerated in the links I supplied earlier.

Sometimes mistakes a re made but when the guilty person is so guilty there is no possibility of their innocence why not put them down. We have video and manifestos from Tarrant and Breivik, they are 100% guilty, there is no reason for them to remain breathing.

Here's a good reason, whenever someone in favor uses callous language about ending a human life like they're putting a horse out of their misery, maybe we should take pause.

Tons of innocent people in the United States were murdered or lynched for hundreds of years. Our justice system still seems to disproportionately try to execute minorities. Investigations are often poor or incomplete, and focus on the first "good suspect," hammering them with whatever evidence can be quickly acquired. There are at least a dozen cases of people who have actually been executed, murdered by the state, with credible exonerating evidence or good faith reasonable doubt, per the link I shared above.

Institutional murder is still murder.

That was then this is today, with people like Tarrant and Breivik there is no doubt they did what they did, there is no possible way they could be considered innocent, with cases like these execution is the only reasonable punishment.

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world. The death penalty was never meant as revenge or a deterrent, it's about justice and accountability. Many states have found it nearly impossible to secure drugs for lethal injections, hence why methods like the electric chair and firing squads are making a comeback. The only fault of the death penalty is that it takes too long to administer.

Again, you failed to answer my question. Some victims' families do not want the death penalty. What say you to them - too bad??

I didn't want both major political parties to give in 100% to the intel community and prosecute war in Iraq and another 10 years of proxy war in Yemen as a response to 9/11, but here we are.

Some victims families are not all victims families.

Never said they were. I just think it's fair to have some options. Society has a need to exact justice, but the victims' family are the most directly affected, and they should be able to choose from the justice options they feel 'right' about.

Kiwirob wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Sometimes mistakes a re made but when the guilty person is so guilty there is no possibility of their innocence why not put them down. We have video and manifestos from Tarrant and Breivik, they are 100% guilty, there is no reason for them to remain breathing.

Here's a good reason, whenever someone in favor uses callous language about ending a human life like they're putting a horse out of their misery, maybe we should take pause.

Tons of innocent people in the United States were murdered or lynched for hundreds of years. Our justice system still seems to disproportionately try to execute minorities. Investigations are often poor or incomplete, and focus on the first "good suspect," hammering them with whatever evidence can be quickly acquired. There are at least a dozen cases of people who have actually been executed, murdered by the state, with credible exonerating evidence or good faith reasonable doubt, per the link I shared above.

Institutional murder is still murder.

That was then this is today, with people like Tarrant and Breivik there is no doubt they did what they did, there is no possible way they could be considered innocent, with cases like these execution is the only reasonable punishment.

What’s the benefit of killing them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

There is ZERO evidence an innocent person was ever executed. As technology as advanced, with DNA the chances of wrongful convction is almost zero

Well that's a crock of shit. There's plenty of evidence and the pile of useless posthumous pardons to go with it.
The US wrongfully convicts on a regular basis......You're not in the movies, DNA evidence is not an all conquering panacea, far from it.

seb146 wrote:

Death is an easy way out. Keeping these people alive so they have to look at the same four walls 24 hours a day for the rest of their lives is severe punishment. They never have a chance at walking on the beach or climbing a mountain or having dinner with the family. Death as punishment is far too easy. Force these people to be miserable forever.

Yes, the victim's family lost something great and precious. But, they can take comfort in the fact the accused is suffering even more than their loved one. Instead of the peace of death, the accused must live with their crime with no way out until death, whenever that may be.

If death is considered "an easy way out" then why do people oppose death sentence? I thought the idea was life is too valuable to be taken away even from those criminals.

Aaron747 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Again, you failed to answer my question. Some victims' families do not want the death penalty. What say you to them - too bad??

I didn't want both major political parties to give in 100% to the intel community and prosecute war in Iraq and another 10 years of proxy war in Yemen as a response to 9/11, but here we are.

Some victims families are not all victims families.

Never said they were. I just think it's fair to have some options. Society has a need to exact justice, but the victims' family are the most directly affected, and they should be able to choose from the justice options they feel 'right' about.

If you argue death sentence is bad because some victim families might not like it, this is just as bad an argument as criminal should be killed because victim family prefer this way. I don't think such individual preference should get in the way of justice system.
What if there exist a father of a big family raped a 3 monthly old baby inside the house, and the entire family decided to side with the father because of various material and emotional consideration? Is that a good path to go down?

This argument also risk letting justice system be negatively influenced by religion, as life and death are some of the last things religion still matter in modern life, allowing individual consideration of families to get in the way of deciding whether a criminal should be sentenced to death or not risk very significant violation of secular justice system and the fairness of the justice system.

Aren’t we supposed to be better then them? If torture is illegal then the death penalty should be also. Sure I agree with many which think many people don’t deserve to live due to the seriousness of their crime, but killing them isn’t the answer. It’s a barbaric act, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Many years ago a much younger me was certainly pro death penalty, I am glad I’ve evolved in my later years….just saying.

c933103 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Some victims families are not all victims families.

Never said they were. I just think it's fair to have some options. Society has a need to exact justice, but the victims' family are the most directly affected, and they should be able to choose from the justice options they feel 'right' about.

If you argue death sentence is bad because some victim families might not like it, this is just as bad an argument as criminal should be killed because victim family prefer this way. I don't think such individual preference should get in the way of justice system.
What if there exist a father of a big family raped a 3 monthly old baby inside the house, and the entire family decided to side with the father because of various material and emotional consideration? Is that a good path to go down?

This argument also risk letting justice system be negatively influenced by religion, as life and death are some of the last things religion still matter in modern life, allowing individual consideration of families to get in the way of deciding whether a criminal should be sentenced to death or not risk very significant violation of secular justice system and the fairness of the justice system.

I didn't argue the death penalty is bad. All I'm saying is if death penalty is on the table as a potential outcome, it's fair if victims' families are consulted by the justice system/prosecutors as to whether they want to pursue it. In government matters, options are usually better for users of the system.

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Here's a good reason, whenever someone in favor uses callous language about ending a human life like they're putting a horse out of their misery, maybe we should take pause.

Tons of innocent people in the United States were murdered or lynched for hundreds of years. Our justice system still seems to disproportionately try to execute minorities. Investigations are often poor or incomplete, and focus on the first "good suspect," hammering them with whatever evidence can be quickly acquired. There are at least a dozen cases of people who have actually been executed, murdered by the state, with credible exonerating evidence or good faith reasonable doubt, per the link I shared above.

Institutional murder is still murder.

That was then this is today, with people like Tarrant and Breivik there is no doubt they did what they did, there is no possible way they could be considered innocent, with cases like these execution is the only reasonable punishment.

What’s the benefit of killing them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once they're gone you don't have to think about them anymore. In Norway Breivik is in the news multiple times per year complaining about his treatment in prison, if he was executed there wouldn't be any of this bullshit, society could forget about him and move on.

Aaron747 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Never said they were. I just think it's fair to have some options. Society has a need to exact justice, but the victims' family are the most directly affected, and they should be able to choose from the justice options they feel 'right' about.

If you argue death sentence is bad because some victim families might not like it, this is just as bad an argument as criminal should be killed because victim family prefer this way. I don't think such individual preference should get in the way of justice system.
What if there exist a father of a big family raped a 3 monthly old baby inside the house, and the entire family decided to side with the father because of various material and emotional consideration? Is that a good path to go down?

This argument also risk letting justice system be negatively influenced by religion, as life and death are some of the last things religion still matter in modern life, allowing individual consideration of families to get in the way of deciding whether a criminal should be sentenced to death or not risk very significant violation of secular justice system and the fairness of the justice system.

I didn't argue the death penalty is bad. All I'm saying is if death penalty is on the table as a potential outcome, it's fair if victims' families are consulted by the justice system/prosecutors as to whether they want to pursue it. In government matters, options are usually better for users of the system.

So in essence if the family of the victims supported the perp being put to death you're onboard with this and support the death penalty?

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

That was then this is today, with people like Tarrant and Breivik there is no doubt they did what they did, there is no possible way they could be considered innocent, with cases like these execution is the only reasonable punishment.

What’s the benefit of killing them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once they're gone you don't have to think about them anymore. In Norway Breivik is in the news multiple times per year complaining about his treatment in prison, if he was executed there wouldn't be any of this bullshit, society could forget about him and move on.

Yes, it’s well known that the best way to deal with difficult things is to put our fingers in our ears and hope the nasty thing doesn’t happen again….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aaron747 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Never said they were. I just think it's fair to have some options. Society has a need to exact justice, but the victims' family are the most directly affected, and they should be able to choose from the justice options they feel 'right' about.

If you argue death sentence is bad because some victim families might not like it, this is just as bad an argument as criminal should be killed because victim family prefer this way. I don't think such individual preference should get in the way of justice system.
What if there exist a father of a big family raped a 3 monthly old baby inside the house, and the entire family decided to side with the father because of various material and emotional consideration? Is that a good path to go down?

This argument also risk letting justice system be negatively influenced by religion, as life and death are some of the last things religion still matter in modern life, allowing individual consideration of families to get in the way of deciding whether a criminal should be sentenced to death or not risk very significant violation of secular justice system and the fairness of the justice system.

I didn't argue the death penalty is bad. All I'm saying is if death penalty is on the table as a potential outcome, it's fair if victims' families are consulted by the justice system/prosecutors as to whether they want to pursue it. In government matters, options are usually better for users of the system.

My reply didn't say death penalty is good or bad either, but just that it would be a bad thing if the decision on whether death sentence is to be given out is to be based on what family of the victim can wish for. I think this would be worse than both universal yes and universal no death penalty. It also effectively force victim's family to decide whether they want to take away someone else's life.

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

What’s the benefit of killing them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once they're gone you don't have to think about them anymore. In Norway Breivik is in the news multiple times per year complaining about his treatment in prison, if he was executed there wouldn't be any of this bullshit, society could forget about him and move on.

Yes, it’s well known that the best way to deal with difficult things is to put our fingers in our ears and hope the nasty thing doesn’t happen again….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or you execute him and the problem go away.

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Once they're gone you don't have to think about them anymore. In Norway Breivik is in the news multiple times per year complaining about his treatment in prison, if he was executed there wouldn't be any of this bullshit, society could forget about him and move on.

Yes, it’s well known that the best way to deal with difficult things is to put our fingers in our ears and hope the nasty thing doesn’t happen again….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or you execute him and the problem go away.

The dead people come back to life? I know it’s Christmas but I do t think that’s going to happen.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Yes, it’s well known that the best way to deal with difficult things is to put our fingers in our ears and hope the nasty thing doesn’t happen again….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or you execute him and the problem go away.

The dead people come back to life? I know it’s Christmas but I do t think that’s going to happen.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe at Easter?

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Once they're gone you don't have to think about them anymore. In Norway Breivik is in the news multiple times per year complaining about his treatment in prison, if he was executed there wouldn't be any of this bullshit, society could forget about him and move on.

Yes, it’s well known that the best way to deal with difficult things is to put our fingers in our ears and hope the nasty thing doesn’t happen again….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or you execute him and the problem go away.

Why, then, are there still violent crimes like rape and murder still happening all across this nation?

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The United States of America has the greatest criminal justice system in the world.

I read that comment, realised that I'd run out of Yorkshire Tea, went out and bought some, made a cuppa and then spat it out with some going up my nose.

That is how ludicrous a sentence it seems to me.

Your criminal justice system is the greatest in the western world at incarcerating people. Your criminal justice system is the tip of the iceberg of a huge money making business. It does almost zero to deter crime and it does even less to rehabilitate those that have committed crime.

The same people who scream about "all lives matter" and "life begins at conception and is precious" are the same people who demand death and suffering for alleged criminals. Not everyone behind bars is guilty. Not everyone arrested actually committed the crime nor can afford lawyers or bail. But, because of those people who actually commit crimes, we have to suspect everyone. I get it: guilty until proven innocent but not always.

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Yes, it’s well known that the best way to deal with difficult things is to put our fingers in our ears and hope the nasty thing doesn’t happen again….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or you execute him and the problem go away.

Why, then, are there still violent crimes like rape and murder still happening all across this nation?

So, I don’t see true death penalty as a deterrent, it’s a final solution for terrible people.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Or you execute him and the problem go away.

Why, then, are there still violent crimes like rape and murder still happening all across this nation?

So, I don’t see true death penalty as a deterrent, it’s a final solution for terrible people.

Solution: a means of solving a problem or dealing with a difficult situation.

1. What is the problem being solved for?
2. How is the problem being solved?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why, then, are there still violent crimes like rape and murder still happening all across this nation?

So, I don’t see true death penalty as a deterrent, it’s a final solution for terrible people.

Solution: a means of solving a problem or dealing with a difficult situation.

1. What is the problem being solved for?
2. How is the problem being solved?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I take it you have a proble with the allies executing the German leaders after WW2?

Some people just aren’t worth keeping alive, they can’t be rehabilitated, there crimes are so heinous execution is the only fitting punishment.

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

So, I don’t see true death penalty as a deterrent, it’s a final solution for terrible people.

Solution: a means of solving a problem or dealing with a difficult situation.

1. What is the problem being solved for?
2. How is the problem being solved?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I take it you have a proble with the allies executing the German leaders after WW2?

Some people just aren’t worth keeping alive, they can’t be rehabilitated, there crimes are so heinous execution is the only fitting punishment.

Indeed, my position does not change no matter how much you try to introduce Godwins law.

It’s telling that you can’t say what it’s solving for and how it solved it and the only recourse is to bring in the nazis to your argument. Meh.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kiwirob wrote:

Some people just aren’t worth keeping alive, they can’t be rehabilitated, there crimes are so heinous execution is the only fitting punishment.

I mean there have been heinous crimes committed all over the world in non-death penalty countries, other societies are able to enact a criminal justice system without resorting to murder.

Now I don’t think it would be too much of a stretch to say the 2011 Norwegian mass murderer is an extremely evil individual. But his society did not see the need to enact a death penalty or other harsh criminal justice measures in response.

Here’s an interview with the father of one of the children murdered. Even though he has more right than anyone to demand his child’s killer be put to death he refuses. He does not want himself, or his society, to stoop down to the murderer’s level.

An incredibly powerful interview that should change some minds:

https://youtu.be/yUoqtqFkaZ0

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Solution: a means of solving a problem or dealing with a difficult situation.

1. What is the problem being solved for?
2. How is the problem being solved?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I take it you have a proble with the allies executing the German leaders after WW2?

Some people just aren’t worth keeping alive, they can’t be rehabilitated, there crimes are so heinous execution is the only fitting punishment.

Indeed, my position does not change no matter how much you try to introduce Godwins law.

It’s telling that you can’t say what it’s solving for and how it solved it and the only recourse is to bring in the nazis to your argument. Meh.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve told you what I believed, you just choose not to agree.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Some people just aren’t worth keeping alive, they can’t be rehabilitated, there crimes are so heinous execution is the only fitting punishment.

I mean there have been heinous crimes committed all over the world in non-death penalty countries, other societies are able to enact a criminal justice system without resorting to murder.

Now I don’t think it would be too much of a stretch to say the 2011 Norwegian mass murderer is an extremely evil individual. But his society did not see the need to enact a death penalty or other harsh criminal justice measures in response.

Here’s an interview with the father of one of the children murdered. Even though he has more right than anyone to demand his child’s killer be put to death he refuses. He does not want himself, or his society, to stoop down to the murderer’s level.

An incredibly powerful interview that should change some minds:

https://youtu.be/yUoqtqFkaZ0

It’s not murder, it’s the death penalty.

My best friend knows the mother of one of the children killed, that fathers point of view is his, and only his, I know it’s not hers, the family have now left Norway. Many Norwegians would have happily seen Breivik executed.

Sadly this is Norway, if he shuts up and stops acting like an idiot he will be released. He had his first parol hearing earlier this year.

In my opinion the death penalty has its place but is overused in the United States. Serial killers, terrorists, mass shooters should be executed but not your run of the mill gang member or person who robs a gas station and kills the attendant, for example.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Or you execute him and the problem go away.

Why, then, are there still violent crimes like rape and murder still happening all across this nation?

So, I don’t see true death penalty as a deterrent, it’s a final solution for terrible people.

And that is fine for people like Nazis, but for people with mental health issues or people with anger management issues or people who simply don't understand what they are doing, is that really the responsible thing to do? There are terrible people out there who need to be thrown in jail who have not murdered anyone at all. Why do they get to run free while a mentally challenged man is put to death?

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I take it you have a proble with the allies executing the German leaders after WW2?

Some people just aren’t worth keeping alive, they can’t be rehabilitated, there crimes are so heinous execution is the only fitting punishment.

Indeed, my position does not change no matter how much you try to introduce Godwins law.

It’s telling that you can’t say what it’s solving for and how it solved it and the only recourse is to bring in the nazis to your argument. Meh.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve told you what I believed, you just choose not to agree.

Indeed, you choose to believe that it’s a acceptable course of action for an authority to kill people without a demonstrable benefit to society based on feelings. Why should a person then not act on what they believe through feeling and with no demonstrable benefit end the life of another human being in the same manner?

I for one would rather use reason, logic and evidence as much as is possible especially in the context of wider societal well being and in particular the killing of another human being.

Yes, we disagree.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Indeed, my position does not change no matter how much you try to introduce Godwins law.

It’s telling that you can’t say what it’s solving for and how it solved it and the only recourse is to bring in the nazis to your argument. Meh.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve told you what I believed, you just choose not to agree.

Indeed, you choose to believe that it’s a acceptable course of action for an authority to kill people without a demonstrable benefit to society based on feelings. Why should a person then not act on what they believe through feeling and with no demonstrable benefit end the life of another human being in the same manner?

I for one would rather use reason, logic and evidence as much as is possible especially in the context of wider societal well being and in particular the killing of another human being.

Yes, we disagree.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s nothing logical about keeping people like Breivik and Tarrant alive.

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I’ve told you what I believed, you just choose not to agree.

Indeed, you choose to believe that it’s a acceptable course of action for an authority to kill people without a demonstrable benefit to society based on feelings. Why should a person then not act on what they believe through feeling and with no demonstrable benefit end the life of another human being in the same manner?

I for one would rather use reason, logic and evidence as much as is possible especially in the context of wider societal well being and in particular the killing of another human being.

Yes, we disagree.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s nothing logical about keeping people like Breivik and Tarrant alive.

Norway and New Zealand disagree, as do another 106 countries around the globe.

ChrisKen wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Indeed, you choose to believe that it’s a acceptable course of action for an authority to kill people without a demonstrable benefit to society based on feelings. Why should a person then not act on what they believe through feeling and with no demonstrable benefit end the life of another human being in the same manner?

I for one would rather use reason, logic and evidence as much as is possible especially in the context of wider societal well being and in particular the killing of another human being.

Yes, we disagree.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s nothing logical about keeping people like Breivik and Tarrant alive.

Norway and New Zealand disagree, as do another 106 countries around the globe.

Why should be care about what other countries think? This is America, its OUR country. Their laws and beliefs are irrelevant to us. We have capital punishment here, if they don't like it thats their problem.

scbriml wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Deterrence is very much part of the justification of punishment from mild house arrest to execution. Yes, it’s a deterrent and righteous revenge on those murdering people in a civil society.

If capital punishment is a deterrent as you claim, one assumes there must be abundant evidence to support that position?

As to it being “righteous revenge”, well the revenge part is right but the other part is sanctimonious twaddle.

Murder is wrong. State sponsored murder is doubly wrong, not least because of the inherent risk of executing an innocent person. Thankfully, the majority of States have joined the civilised World in that respect.

I think most people would be ok with life in prison without parole vs execution. Problem is life without parole sometimes is not that. Been more than one time they have let out a murderer only to murder again. Oregon commuting death penalty cases is probably a good move since it's unlikely they would ever carry out an execution so it's just a waste of taxpayer money. But there are those who do not deserve to live among us one Ted Bundy comes to mind. The death penalty was not a deterrent to him because he thought he was was smarter than law enforcement and in the end he truly was scared when his day came to meet the electric chair. I am generally against the death penalty only because our system is not flawless and the punishment seems to escape the the well connected and affluent. But I do believe there are some cases where the death penalty should be applied and not the peaceful sanitary lethal injection either.