OT The Death Penalty

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Most of these mass murders are going for suicide by cop. That, or they are going for the notoriety of it. And executions would play right into that, by making it a more compelling story.

I would submit that the better solution would be to let nonviolent offenders out of prison than to encourage government to kill civilians. Seems like we'd get way more bang for the buck, without the threat of innocent loss of life and without having our government accustomed to killing the population.

There are only a very few murderers who would even qualify for the very stringent limits being applied... It wouldn't even save us a penny per person per year as a country.

This just doesn't make logical sense in my mind.

I know you didn't address this to me, but sometimes there are other things that makes sense enough to some to overrule a cost, one way or another.
Sometimes the joint satisfaction of knowing an evil entity is no longer on this planet is justification enough for people to make sense of it.

 

[tlongII]

You want to believe that. From what I saw it looked like self defense.

I would have been interested in the trial.

I expect our law enforcement to be better than that. Which is why I am opposed to law enforcement killing civilians except in self defense, or an active threat situation.

Self defense?! Really?! He shot his gun twice! You don't get to shoot people because you feel threatened by a can of mace or bear spray!

 

[Phatguysrule]

The benefit is that a psychopath who wants to kill innocent people will no longer be able to live out the fantasy....simple if you take the time to see it for what it is....the person who's complicated this topic so far my friend is you.....you are anti govt and anti military but for arming civilians and trusting them....that's complicated....my original post here is I'm pro death penalty for demonstrable unquestionable killers and also that life sentences are more of a burden on society than the death penalty if carried out promptly. I DID NOT FAIL TO MENTION WHY...I laid it out in detail. You don't agree, fine, but understand that's just you not agreeing..nothing more. You have every right to be anti death penalty..in the case of Bend....the guy is dead. I'm glad...sure as hell wish he didn't have the ways and means to kill anyone though.

You say there is that benefit, but it's not actually true. A person in a room is a threat to nobody.

The person in Bend died in the act. I'm good with it. Whoever killed him is a hero.

I'm anti government killing its civilians, for sure. But I'm far from antigovernment.

I don't fit into a little box that mekes me easy to dismiss, that's true.

I base my stances on facts, data, and reality, not feelings and preconceived notions. I've come to hold these beliefs based on years of research and debate. I've changed many prior stances based on evidence, and support of the death penalty is one of them.

There is no logical reason to kill execute a prisoner. That is plain and simply blood lust.

I understand it, but it's not logical or civilized.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Self defense?! Really?! He shot his gun twice! You don't get to shoot people because you feel threatened by a can of mace or bear spray!

A guy with a visible gun was chasing him after he fled, looking for him, then charging toward him and pulling something from his waste up to aim.

That's self defense. He had ample reason to fear for his life in that situation.

I understand you don't agree, but that's what the physical and video evidence showed.

Yes, if you arm yourself and go harass and beat people with projectiles and aim anything at them you might get shot. And rightfully so.

Again, I would have been interested in the trial. It could have cleared up a lot.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I know you didn't address this to me, but sometimes there are other things that makes sense enough to some to overrule a cost, one way or another.
Sometimes the joint satisfaction of knowing an evil entity is no longer on this planet is justification enough for people to make sense of it.

That is what we call revenge or vengeance. This is not civilized thinking.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

That is what we call revenge or vengeance. This is not civilized thinking.

I disagree. I consider it a cleansing of pure evil. There are times when lines must be drawn. Rare, no doubt. But a clear cut mass murderer would be one of them. And i believe the majority of civilians would agree with me.
So are you implying the majority are not civilized in their thinking?

 

[Phatguysrule]

I disagree. I consider it a cleansing of pure evil. There are times when lines must be drawn. Rare, no doubt. But a clear cut mass murderer would be one of them. And i believe the majority of civilians would agree with me.
So are you implying the majority are not civilized in their thinking?

America is a very violent country. Absolutely.

 

[tlongII]

A guy with a visible gun was chasing him after he fled, looking for him, then charging toward him and pulling something from his waste up to aim.

That's self defense. He had ample reason to fear for his life in that situation.

I understand you don't agree, but that's what the physical and video evidence showed.

Yes, if you arm yourself and go harass and beat people with projectiles and aim anything at them you might get shot. And rightfully so.

Again, I would have been interested in the trial. It could have cleared up a lot.

The physical and video evidence I saw did not show that. At all.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

America is a very violent country. Absolutely.

The majority?

 

[Phatguysrule]

The physical and video evidence I saw did not show that. At all.

It showed exactly what I described. There is no reason to think a person wouldn't react the way he did.

 

[Phatguysrule]

If you think mob leaders don't kill people from prison or order hits, you're not dealing with the facts. Prisons are violent places. You don't have to value the fact but it is absolutely true....you are arguing in absolutes which are in my view biased in nature.

Of course that happens. When did I say or suggest it didn't?

Are you suggesting killing everybody arrested with mob contacts to make prisons safer?

 

[Phatguysrule]

The majority?

The majority support policies which promote, encourage, incite, violence and authoritarianism. Absolutely. Just look at how we deal with healthcare and the homeless.

No logic applied to any of it because of our personal feelings that people should be punished for not having what we do.

 

[calvin natt]

People in jail are not a threat to society. Let's be real.

If murderers in jail kill other murderers that's far better than the government sanctioning the killing. But it should be limited by keeping murderers who are deemed a threat in solitary confinement.

I would absolutely support that. Long before I will ever support government sanctioned executions.

But if you’re afraid of killing them because “there might be a mistake”, wouldn’t you be afraid or against solitary confinement since that same guy might be in there by mistake? Killing an innocent person may very well be a better solution for him than sticking him in solitary. For me it would.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

The majority support policies which promote, encourage, incite, violence and authoritarianism. Absolutely. Just look at how we deal with healthcare and the homeless.

No logic applied to any of it because of our personal feelings that people should be punished for not having what we do.

Says you. How about a different logic instead of no logic? Clearly a 100 million plus disagree with you….it would be great if we could discuss without trying to minimize another's logic on a topic that clearly has many, many, people on each side.
Your logic is based on a potential. I believe mine is based on a principle. Neither are wrong per say. But if you are to try to sway me into your thinking, maybe stop with making it as though anyone, me, who thinks differently than you is illogical? Or uncaring or caring less than you?
Can we not just discuss without making it as though one is not thinking? It would be more productive.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

And just to add @Phatguysrule my fellow blazer community friend, whoever said this world is, has ever been, or ever will be logical?

 

[Phatguysrule]

But if you’re afraid of killing them because “there might be a mistake”, wouldn’t you be afraid or against solitary confinement since that same guy might be in there by mistake? Killing an innocent person may very well be a better solution for him than sticking him in solitary. For me it would.

An innocent person isn't likely going to display traits that would get them put in solitary confinement. I'm ok with letting the prison shrink make that decision.

You can come back from solitary confinement. You can't come back from death.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Says you. How about a different logic instead of no logic? Clearly a 100 million plus disagree with you….it would be great if we could discuss without trying to minimize another's logic on a topic that clearly has many, many, people on each side.
Your logic is based on a potential. I believe mine is based on a principle. Neither are wrong per say. But if you are to try to sway me into your thinking, maybe stop with making it as though anyone, me, who thinks differently than you is illogical? Or uncaring or caring less than you?
Can we not just discuss without making it as though one is not thinking? It would be more productive.

My logic is based on numbers and facts, as well as principles. We know we have innocent people in death row. We know we have executed innocent people. We have exonerated people from the death sentence.

We should not kill people unless they are a threat to society. People in prison are not a threat to society. We should not have a policy that supports killing prisoners.

This seems very simple to me.

I'm not minimizing anything, but calling it like it is. Killing a person who is locked up is wrong. Even if it does save us money or space.

 

[Phatguysrule]

And just to add @Phatguysrule my fellow blazer community friend, whoever said this world is, has ever been, or ever will be logical?

We should strive for logical policies. We can control our policies, even if we can't control every eventuality.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

We should strive for logical policies. We can control our policies, even if we can't control every eventuality.

numbers aren't always logical. You want us to be robots. That isn't reality. Feelings and emotions come into play in all tragic situations. We are humans. Well most of us anyhow.. (lookin at you dawg)

 

[Road Ratt]

I disagree. I consider it a cleansing of pure evil. There are times when lines must be drawn. Rare, no doubt. But a clear cut mass murderer would be one of them. And i believe the majority of civilians would agree with me.
So are you implying the majority are not civilized in their thinking?

Believing that a majority of civilians would agree with you, isn't evidence that they truly do. An article with stats on this statement would help your argument though. (just my two cents)

The concept that evil must be destroyed, is in and of itself, ironically evil. If you can kill evil, then the act of doing the same act the evil you are destroying did, makes you just as evil as the evil you destroyed. (again, just my two cents)

 

[calvin natt]

An innocent person isn't likely going to display traits that would get them put in solitary confinement. I'm ok with letting the prison shrink make that decision.

You can come back from solitary confinement. You can't come back from death.

I dunno. I would think sitting in prison for a crime you didn’t commit for life just might drive you to do things you never thought possible. And go insane. Or violent.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Believing that a majority of civilians would agree with you, isn't evidence that they truly do. An article with stats on this statement would help your argument though. (just my two cents)

The concept that evil must be destroyed, is in and of itself, ironically evil. If you can kill evil, then the act of doing the same act the evil you are destroying did, makes you just as evil as the evil you destroyed. (again, just my two cents)

I am very much an advocate of violence creates violence creates violence, etc. . But then i also believe that there is a line. Where that line is drawn is often the foundation of controversy.
Let me ask you this.
If an individual had a bomb strapped to him that could destroy the planet(play hypothetical with me), would you consider it evil if a sniper took him out before he could detonate such a device?
If not, then you too have lines. Its all a matter of perspective of where that line lies.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I dunno. I would think sitting in prison for a crime you didn’t commit for life just might drive you to do things you never thought possible. And go insane. Or violent.

Hundreds have come back from that situation and survived to live out their lives. I think they should be paid 10x the average salary for every year they spend in there as an apology.

We haven't had one come back from death yet. At least, not that I've heard of.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I can appreciate the discussion going on right now without contributing to what I feel has been discussed ad nauseam in the "From my cold dead hands" thread.

Right now the main thing on my mind is the greater central Oregon community, and honestly, every community in the US. With Uvalde at the very end of the school year and then before this year is even about to start there was someone planning something for day one. This time at a school district that my own brother is employed at. That my father has substitute taught at. I wonder how many parents are pulling their kids from classes. Covid is over and most places are phasing out virtual class, with some saying you can't attend unless it's in person.

Maybe this post is better suited for a different thread, but I feel like we are getting into a broken feedback loop. Education is pivotal to a functioning society. We already have the biggest prison population in the world per capita (iirc, call me out if I'm wrong) and if we aren't educating the youth of our country properly this will only get worse. Most here are good parents, I'm sure. Idk. At a loss.

Excellent post.

I think parents are in a tough spot. Parents have less disposable income and less support from schools. They are being forced to spend more time just putting food on the table.

And with social media, it's just been a perfect storm.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I am very much an advocate of violence creates violence creates violence, etc. . But then i also believe that there is a line. Where that line is drawn is often the foundation of controversy.
Let me ask you this.
If an individual had a bomb strapped to him that could destroy the planet(play hypothetical with me), would you consider it evil if a sniper took him out before he could detonate such a device?
If not, then you too have lines. Its all a matter of perspective of where that line lies.

That would be self defense, or defending against a present danger.

Completely different situation than executing a person who only gets to see the open sky when a high school dropout decides to let them out of their cage.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

That would be self defense, or defending against a present danger.

Completely different situation than executing a person who only gets to see the open sky when a high school dropout decides to let them out of their cage.

I dont understand that last sentence about a high school drop out.
The point being is some people believe or feel that an undisputed mass murderer should not be allowed to live.
Whether you agree with that or not is your right, but it is also the right of others to think and feel differently than you and it doesn't make them wrong any more than you believe you are right.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I dont understand that last sentence about a high school drop out.
The point being is some people believe or feel that an undisputed mass murderer should not be allowed to live.
Whether you agree with that or not is your right, but it is also the right of others to think and feel differently than you and it doesn't make them wrong any more than you believe you are right.

You can be a high school dropout and become a prison guard. And fully control the life of these people in prison. Because they are not a threat to society.

Yes, I'm only stating my opinion.

We should not be convicting anybody unless they are undisputed criminals. Yet we do.

Our judicial system isn't capable enough to be sure. That's why we have innocent people on death row. I am opposed to killing innocent people. We should do what ever possible to prevent our government from doing this. Up to to and including not killing people we have in cages.

These are my opinions and stances. I've given reasons why, I've shown evidence that we have innocent people in prison and on death row. Evidence that we've exonerated hundreds of people from death row. Which is evidence that there are innocent people in death row now.

There was a time when I supported the death penalty. But after much research and deliberation I have changed my stance. Because that is what all the evidence I've been able to find supports. This is why I support logic and data based government.

There has never been a government who didn't convict innocent people. If you support the death penalty, you do support the government killing of innocent people. That is the reality of it.

I do not support a policy of government vengeance against civilians because there is no logical reason to do so. Nothing gained. No benefit to society. This policy will always result in innocent people who are no threat, and aren't even involved in a threatening situation, being killed by the government. And we are telling our government that killing innocent civilians is acceptable.

We can stop that tomorrow, by simply removing the death penalty (which offers no benefit to society), and removing it offers no added cost.

I am for doing that.

I don't know why some of you are upset about that.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

You can be a high school dropout and become a prison guard. And fully control the life of these people in prison. Because they are not a threat to society.

Yes, I'm only stating my opinion.

We should not be convicting anybody unless they are undisputed criminals. Yet we do.

Our judicial system isn't capable enough to be sure. That's why we have innocent people on death row. I am opposed to killing innocent people. We should do what ever possible to prevent our government from doing this. Up to to and including not killing people we have in cages.

These are my opinions and stances. I've given reasons why, I've shown evidence that we have innocent people in prison and on death row. Evidence that we've exonerated hundreds of people from death row. Which is evidence that there are innocent people in death row now.

There was a time when I supported the death penalty. But after much research and deliberation I have changed my stance. Because that is what all the evidence I've been able to find supports. This is why I support logic and data based government.

There has never been a government who didn't convict innocent people. If you support the death penalty, you do support the government killing of innocent people. That is the reality of it.

I do not support a policy of government vengeance against civilians because there is no logical reason to do so. Nothing gained. No benefit to society. This policy will always result in innocent people who are no threat, and aren't even involved in a threatening situation, being killed by the government. And we are telling our government that killing innocent civilians is acceptable.

We can stop that tomorrow, by simply removing the death penalty (which offers no benefit to society), and removing it offers no added cost.

I am for doing that.

I don't know why some of you are upset about that.

No one is upset that I have read. Instead it seems you are upset that others don't have the same logical mindset as you.

There is nothing absolute, which it seems you want and that isn't reality.
Flip the coin then. By this logic we shouldn't arrest anyone because when we do, we arent 100% accurate that they did anything wrong.
The evidence may support your logic but it doesn't mean your logic is correct.
Im willing to bet i can find a higher percentage of guilty people who got off than innocent people who are convicted.
There are victims on both sides. But what is the percent? Less than 1% of convicted are convicted while being innocent?
There is no answer to make things perfect. But the numbers say keep arresting criminals because the percent of guilty removed from the streets is a greater threat removal with a higher chance of having more victims, than the few who are wrongly incarcerated.

Yes some things in all facets of life, slip through the cracks. Unfortunately this is the worst side of it. But when dealing in the hundreds of millions, we are all just stats.
i bet the stats say its better for society to get convicts off the streets even at the risk of a rare innocent being convicted, than to let them run free.
I know this isn't what you said, but I'm just giving an example that at times no stat is perfect, but you go with the one that helps society more.
Many, many people see removing an undisputed mass murderer from this earth as helping society. Not just physically but mentally…emotionally.
Logic will not overrule this feeling.
We are human. We are not mathematical robots.

 

[Phatguysrule]

No one is upset that I have read. Instead it seems you are upset that others don't have the same logical mindset as you.

Can you please show me the exclamation points and all caps that I've used to address anybody in this thread? You, as well as others have addressed me with such regarding this discussion. Do I really need to go back and quote them?

I have only stated my position, and backed it up with data and facts.

There is nothing absolute, which it seems you want and that isn't reality.

Yes. We can absolutely remove the policy that allows our government to kill innocent people. I have already established this. This is reality.

Flip the coin then. By this logic we shouldn't arrest anyone because when we do, we aren't 100% accurate that they did anything wrong.

I have already addressed this several times. We have exonerated many people. And I fully support paying anybody who is exonerated the greater of 10x the the wage they would have earned otherwise, or 10x the average salary during the time they were incarcerated. This is not a mistake that we should allow the government to make lightly.

The evidence may support your logic but it doesn't mean your logic is correct.
Im willing to bet i can find a higher percentage of guilty people who got off than innocent people who are convicted.

Wow. This is an incredibly low bar. So, it's ok to kill an innocent person as long as we get a guilty person as well? Yep, I disagree with this 100%. I would much prefer 100 guilty people go free than punish 1 innocent person.

There are victims on both sides. But what is the percent? Less than 1% of convicted are convicted while being innocent?
There is no answer to make things perfect. But the numbers say keep arresting criminals because the percent of guilty removed from the streets is a greater threat removal with a higher chance of having more victims, than the few who are wrongly incarcerated.

No, the numbers say arresting people doesn't help much. We're among the most violent countries in the world with the largest prison population in the world. If arresting people worked we would be the least violent country in the world.

Yes some things in all facets of life, slip through the cracks. Unfortunately this is the worst side of it. But when dealing in the 100% of millions we are all just stats.
i bet the stats say its better for society to get convicts off the streets even at the risk of a rare innocent being convicted, than to let them run free.

You would be wrong (if you're suggesting this remains at current levels), as stated above.

I know this isn't what you said, but I'm just giving an example that at times no stat is perfect, but you go with the one that helps society more.
Many, many people see removing an undisputed mass murderer from this earth as helping society. Not just physically but mentally…emotionally.
Logic will not overrule this feeling.
We are human. We are not mathematical robots.

Stats have given us answers here, we have refused to apply those stats to logical solutions which have been proven to address our problems.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Can you please show me the exclamation points and all caps that I've used to address anybody in this thread? You, as well as others have addressed me with such regarding this discussion. Do I really need to go back and quote them?

I have only states my position, and backed it up with data and facts.


Yes. We can absolutely remove the policy that allows our government to kill innocent people. I have already established this. This is reality.


I have already addressed this several times. We have exonerated many people. And I fully support paying anybody who is exonerated the greater of 10x the the wage they would have earned otherwise, or 10x the average salary during the time they were incarcerated. This is not a mistake that we should allow the government to make lightly.

Wow. This is an incredibly low bar. So, it's ok to kill an innocent person as long as we get a guilty person as well? Yep, I disagree with this 100%. I would much prefer 100 guilty people go free than punish 1 innocent person.

No, the numbers say arresting people doesn't help much. We're among the most violent countries in the world with the largest prison population in the world. If arresting people worked we would be the least violent country in the world.


You would be wrong, as stated above.

Stats have given us answers here, we have refused to apply those stats to logical solutions which have been proven to be solutions to our problems.

when you minimize another's logic, it is a sign you are upset another doesn't think the same as you.
Caps doesn't always mean someone is upset. It can just mean emphasis on a word.
I can type I am NOT upset. Emphasizing the not. That doesn't mean i am upset.
It just means im trying to be clear that I am NOT upset.

Yes you should go back and quote them, if you deem them being upset at you. I bet there are reasons you may not be logically thinking about as to why something was typing in caps.