OT How many assholes here against the death penalty? (2 Viewers)

[PtldPlatypus]

You have a right to life until the government, who constantly overreaches, can take it away from you.

#conservalogic

...after completion of due process as set forth by the bill of rights. Yes. Consistent.

 

[dviss1]

Your right to life exists because we have laws. Otherwise someone could take it from you today. If the death penalty is allowed by our constitution then this guy deserves it.

If you don't want to follow the constitution I don't know what to tell you.

@PtldPlatypus should you handle this one?

I'd also have you look up Troy Davis while you're taking the latter position...

3rdly It's been ruled unconstitutional by the lower courts and based upon you thinking it's constitutional let's me know you have no clue about it. You just want to take revenge on those you think should pay for their crimes with death.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Rather than saying that our right to life exists because we have laws, I would say instead that the primary purpose of laws is to help protect people's natural rights, including the right to life (along with liberty and property).

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

@PtldPlatypus should you handle this one?

I'd also have you look up Troy Davis while you're taking the latter position...

3rdly It's been ruled unconstitutional by the lower courts and based upon you thinking it's constitutional let's me know you have no clue about it. You just want to take revenge on those you think should pay for their crimes with death.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, methinks you should do some reading and educate yourself.

By the way, lol at LOWER courts.

Lower courts can rule that Dviss1 gets to choose who lives or dies. That means absolutely nothing.

Don't know if Troy Davis killed anyone or not. Does not change how I feel about child rapist/killers getting tortured to death.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Rather than saying that our right to life exists because we have laws, I would say instead that the primary purpose of laws is to help protect people's natural rights, including the right to life (along with liberty and property).

Cavemen had a natural right to clock a chick in the head with a club and drag her home.

Without some form of government I can do anything I want. How many millions of kids were killed by people like this guy before modern society tried to stop it?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Cavemen had a natural right to clock a chick in the head with a club and drag her home.

Without some form of government I can do anything I want. How many millions of kids were killed by people like this guy before modern society tried to stop it?

You have an interesting definition of a natural right. Pretty difficult for us to have a conversation if we vary so widely on the meaning of essential terms.

 

[dviss1]

Rather than saying that our right to life exists because we have laws, I would say instead that the primary purpose of laws is to help protect people's natural rights, including the right to life (along with liberty and property).

You don't have a right to property.

That's John Locke and predates the constitution.

Thomas Jefferson changed it to the pursuit of happiness.

 

[dviss1]

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, methinks you should do some reading and educate yourself.

By the way, lol at LOWER courts.

Lower courts can rule that Dviss1 gets to choose who lives or dies. That means absolutely nothing.

Don't know if Troy Davis killed anyone or not. Does not change how I feel about child rapist/killers getting tortured to death.

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

There's a reason why it hasn't gone to the SCOTUS.... YET.

It's being deemed unconstitutional state by state.

 

[Cippy91]

Okay so 17 confirmed dead in this school shooting. You guys want this 18 year old to get the death penalty or no?

 

[H.C.]

This thread just goes to show how far we as a society have to go.
You cannot fight violence with more violence.
As doing so makes it a virus that will forever spread to whomever witnesses it.

Okay so 17 confirmed dead in this school shooting. You guys want this 18 year old to get the death penalty or no?

I do not want to see this 18 year old put to death, no.
He should face consequences, but death penalty is not one of those.

 

[riverman]

I vote yes.....you kill 17 people...you should die...I was in Viet Nam at 18....if I killed 17 innocent people...I'd die...it wouldn't be a conversation..

 

[MarAzul]

When it comes to issues that don't effect you personally or ones you don't give a shit about, I encourage you to research...

Failure to Deter Crime

There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. North Carolina’s murder rate declined after executions stopped. The death penalty has failed to deliver on the much touted promise that it makes the people of North Carolina safer.



Over the past several years, there has been a steep drop-off in the use of the death penalty. No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006. The number of death sentences handed down by juries has been declining for years, and in 2012 and 2015, no one received the death penalty in North Carolina. Even prosecutors have declined to seek the death penalty in all but a handful of cases.

Yet, according to the N.C. Department of Justice, the state murder rate has declined in the years since executions stopped. Given this fact, there is no credible argument that the death penalty deters crime. In the video above, a former N.C. police chief and a retired N.C. prison warden say that the death penalty serves no purpose in protecting public safety.

Most people on death row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness. They represent a group that is highly unlikely to make rational decisions based on a fear of future consequences for their actions. The idea that the death penalty has the power to stop murder is naive and clearly proven false by the facts. Studies that have shown the death penalty reduces crime have been discredited by rigorous research.

Nationally, murder rates are significantly lower in states that don’t use the death penalty than in those with a death penalty statute — and have been consistently for the past two decades. In some years, the murder rate in non-death penalty states was as much as 46 percent lower than in death penalty states. In a 2008 survey, police chiefs from across the country ranked the use of the death penalty at the bottom of a list of effective crime fighting tools. They said more law enforcement resources were the most needed tool for reducing violent crime.

We are not taking about whether the death penalty is and effective deterrent to homicide.

We are speaking specifically about using it to deter predator Pedophiles harming children. An especially heinous crime!

From you linked article;

"The case for capital punishment is sometimes based on arguments that the death penalty is the only appropriate response to especially heinous crimes;"

I think deterrence depends on the the person being deterred, probably their ability to be deterred or not from committing a particular heinous crime. If the death penalty in this case is not done in sanitary secrecy from the public it may indeed have a larger impact, but in any case, if one predatory Pedophile is deterred then we win and it is worth the effort and the uncomfortableness.

"Conclusion and Recommendation
The committee concludes that research to date is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, these studies should not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate or has no effect on it should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment."

 

[MarAzul]

How many millions of kids were killed by people like this guy before modern society tried to stop it?

Well, how many assholes did you count? I see dviss made it in under the wire.

 

[Further]

Okay so 17 confirmed dead in this school shooting. You guys want this 18 year old to get the death penalty or no?

Do I want him to die? Yes. Do I think the government should be deciding who should die? No. Until such time as we can actually be certain that the one being convicted is positively the perpetrator then the govt. should be limited to their punishments to what could be overturned. Most likely this fucker did it and certainly doesn't deserve any sympathy, assistance or freedom. But I'm not actually concerned about him so long as he never has a chance to do it again. I'm concerned with the government losing more moral ground. It's one thing to use drones in an attack and to have "collateral damage" killing innocents unintentionally, but for the government to kill people with forethought and purpose and then to later have it turn out those people were innocent, that's not the role I want my government to take. In war we kill with forethought, but that's supposed to be in a dire circumstance where we don't have a more just alternative that has the same outcome. In the courts, we have the ability to never let the convict see the light of day and to never threaten the lives of innocents again.

Of course I want him gored, stoned, hung, put on a pike, but that's because I'm an emotional individual. The government should pass laws so as to avoid the hasty emotional decisions an individual makes. That being said, if he does get the death penalty, I won't protest. I'll just hope we got the right one.

 

[dviss1]

Well, how many assholes did you count? I see dviss made it in under the wire.

You shoulda just personally insulted me in your normal vernacular.

And QUOTE me when you say my name.

 

[dviss1]

Do I want him to die? Yes. Do I think the government should be deciding who should die? No. Until such time as we can actually be certain that the one being convicted is positively the perpetrator then the govt. should be limited to their punishments to what could be overturned. Most likely this fucker did it and certainly doesn't deserve any sympathy, assistance or freedom. But I'm not actually concerned about him so long as he never has a chance to do it again. I'm concerned with the government losing more moral ground. It's one thing to use drones in an attack and to have "collateral damage" killing innocents unintentionally, but for the government to kill people with forethought and purpose and then to later have it turn out those people were innocent, that's not the role I want my government to take. In war we kill with forethought, but that's supposed to be in a dire circumstance where we don't have a more just alternative that has the same outcome. In the courts, we have the ability to never let the convict see the light of day and to never threaten the lives of innocents again.

Of course I want him gored, stoned, hung, put on a pike, but that's because I'm an emotional individual. The government should pass laws so as to avoid the hasty emotional decisions an individual makes. That being said, if he does get the death penalty, I won't protest. I'll just hope we got the right one.

Apparently you're an asshole for having this completely logical viewpoint.

 

[MarAzul]

completely logical

Sorry, but it is illogical.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

How many innocent civilians have we drone bombed to death in the last year? But we draw the line at a pedophile rapist? It’s confusing to be alive.

We trust the government with peoples lives every day, and every day they fail us.

And I thought conservatives were against government death panels. When they get final say in who lives and dies, we might not like the outcome eventually.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Okay so 17 confirmed dead in this school shooting. You guys want this 18 year old to get the death penalty or no?

Not even a question. Put him down. Period.

 

[MarAzul]

Not even a question. Put him down. Period.

Actually I might call him and enemy combatant and grill him in Getmo for awhile to see if there isn't more to this than him just being a nut job or a disgruntled hispanic. If the latter then what's up with this?