# The Troy Davis thread (Innocent man set to be executed tonight)



## Djent (Sep 21, 2011)

Troy Davis case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Convicted for a 1989 murder of a police officer. He's set to get the lethal injection tonight (9/21).

But he's innocent. Most of the witnesses who testified against him have recanted their testimonies. Even with a Supreme Court order to review the evidence, a large campaign from Amnesty International, and a petition signed by 650,000 people (including Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, most of the European Parliament, and even Pope Benedict XVI), the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles states that he will die tonight.

What is up with this?


----------



## murakami (Sep 21, 2011)

you know what pisses me off? who are these fucking assholes who fingered him in the first place and changing their mind afterwards. do they not realize they just destroyed his life? in turn, something should be done to them.


----------



## Aaron (Sep 21, 2011)

Good job America! Oh yeah you served justice, you got that fucker good didnt ya! whatever, sux


----------



## murakami (Sep 21, 2011)

canada has shit laws here too. it feels like we protect the criminals more than victims over here.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Sep 21, 2011)

murakami said:


> canada has shit laws here too. it feels like *we protect the criminals more than victims over here*.



please elaborate how this is relevant to this case


----------



## murakami (Sep 21, 2011)

kgad0831 said:


> please elaborate how this is relevant to this case


 

because of the person above said how america's law system failed this man. i wanted to say that canada is no better so there is no point in specifically saying that one country has a flawed justice system.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 21, 2011)

This is why I don't support the death penalty. If one innocent person dies, that's one too many. I'd rather a third of my paycheck be taken every week to keep his ass alive and in jail (assuming he committed any crimes) than to know some of my money went towards killing someone in my own country.


----------



## murakami (Sep 21, 2011)

^^^

i know what you mean.... but at the same time, i think some people, who are just plain evil and can't be helped, are just better off taken away from the civilized people.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 21, 2011)

murakami said:


> ^^^
> 
> i know what you mean.... but at the same time, i think some people, who are just plain evil and can't be helped, are just better off taken away from the civilized people.



And that's exactly why you have a prison. Death penalty is not a penalty. It's Disqulification from life.


----------



## murakami (Sep 21, 2011)

fair enough. i watched a documentary on San Quentin... that pretty much scared me straight.

but back to my main argument; criminals sometimes get their way in prison as well. establishing more contacts and possibly becoming an even bigger threat when they come out. not every one is rehabilitated once they get out, but at the same time i can understand that an ex-con is not given a proper chance once they get out of jail.

i am just saying, we should at least leave the option open for the people who just rape and kill without a cause. e.g. because they were bored or wanted excitement etc...


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 21, 2011)

murakami said:


> fair enough. i watched a documentary on San Quentin... that pretty much scared me straight.
> 
> but back to my main argument; criminals sometimes get their way in prison as well. establishing more contacts and possibly becoming an even bigger threat when they come out. not every one is rehabilitated once they get out, but at the same time i can understand that an ex-con is not given a proper chance once they get out of jail.
> 
> i am just saying, we should at least leave the option open for the people who just rape and kill without a cause. e.g. because they were bored or wanted excitement etc...



I hear what you're saying. I've often posted in threads like these about rehabilitation in the prison system, or rather the lack of it. I think in cases where someone would've gotten the death penalty, it'd be better to just have it be a life sentence.

I don't know what time this man was to be executed, but I know that as soon as I hear that he was, I'll be depressed until I can find something mindless and selfish to obsess over.


----------



## Sephael (Sep 21, 2011)

Aaron said:


> Good job America! Oh yeah you served justice, you got that fucker good didnt ya! whatever, sux



find one country that has never had legal snafus before you start dissing the US as a whole for it please.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

murakami said:


> i am just saying, we should at least leave the option open for the people who just rape and kill without a cause.



Nope. Not ever.

Insofar as I can reason, if you support the death penalty for murder and live in a nation that uses it, a single innocent person executed makes you guilty of murder and as such, due for execution yourself.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 22, 2011)

I have a simpler solution, keep the death penalty and in cases such as this where any doubt whatsoever is brought up later the sentence gets commuted to life. This way fuckholes that are clearly guilty with no doubt whatsoever get executed. You know like - it's on camera, multiple witnesses, full admission, etc. IMO in those cases and with truly heinous crimes there is ZERO reason to keep hem alive, sheltered, fed, clothed, and medically cared for. Like Breivik, IMO he should be executed. 


Rev.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Sep 22, 2011)

article says he was just killed...
this is terrible if he is innocent...


----------



## BrianUV777BK (Sep 22, 2011)

So a man who may be innocent is put to death.

We all know Casey Anthony killed her kid yet she walks free?

Just goes to show you that a cute face and big tits will get you anything in this world.


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

BrianUV777BK said:


> So a man who may be innocent is put to death.
> 
> We all know Casey Anthony killed her kid yet she walks free?
> 
> Just goes to show you that a cute face and big tits will get you anything in this world.


 

yeah, i've heard of this bitch. apparently she and a boyfriend killed the child. after court, she ran into her car with her lawyer with a smerk on her face, the fucking trashy bitch.

i am in support of the death penalty only if the system wasn't fucking flawed. i should retract my statement of needing the death penalty; there is way too much incompetence in the law system to make the bad guys kill over.

but i still like to bring up the debate of whether to keep these losers alive(the obviously guilty ones) when tax dollars are used to keep them clothed, fed and with a shelter. it might be overcrowded with tons of assholes, killers etc... but it's still the countries money spent on something that can be used to cover their deficit.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 22, 2011)

murakami said:


> but i still like to bring up the debate of whether to keep these losers alive(the obviously guilty ones) when tax dollars are used to keep them clothed, fed and with a shelter.



All the data out there says it costs way way more for a prisoner on death row than a regular life imprisonment inmates costs - several state reports listed the costs in the multiple millions for each prisoner executed. This outrages me to no end. I simply can't wrap my head around why it could cost tax payers $37,000,000 to try, incarcerate, then execute one prisoner. I'm sure a good portion of that is the modern day exorbitant legal costs for trial and defense etc. Then I recall reading the inmate is in a higher security prison since they are on death row and that costs $90,000 MORE a year than a standard facility.


Rev.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 22, 2011)

murakami said:


> yeah, i've heard of this bitch. apparently she and a boyfriend killed the child. after court, she ran into her car with her lawyer with a smerk on her face, the fucking trashy bitch.
> 
> i am in support of the death penalty only if the system wasn't fucking flawed. i should retract my statement of needing the death penalty; there is way too much incompetence in the law system to make the bad guys kill over.
> 
> but i still like to bring up the debate of whether to keep these losers alive(the obviously guilty ones) when tax dollars are used to keep them clothed, fed and with a shelter. it might be overcrowded with tons of assholes, killers etc... but it's still the countries money spent on something that can be used to cover their deficit.





Rev2010 said:


> All the data out there says it costs way way more for a prisoner on death row than a regular life imprisonment inmates costs - several state reports listed the costs in the multiple millions for each prisoner executed. This outrages me to no end. I simply can't wrap my head around why it could cost tax payers $37,000,000 to try, incarcerate, then execute one prisoner. I'm sure a good portion of that is the modern day exorbitant legal costs for trial and defense etc. Then I recall reading the inmate is in a higher security prison since they are on death row and that costs $90,000 MORE a year than a standard facility.
> 
> 
> Rev.


This.

I don't know why people keep bringing up money as a reason to support the death penalty when it's a well known fact by this point that death row inmates cost much, much more than inmates imprisoned for life.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 22, 2011)

"Killing a man under this enormous cloud of doubt is horrific and amounts to a catastrophic failure of the justice system," said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International (AIUSA).


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

i forgot to even consider the cost of the death row inmates. i am assuming it's the cost of the guards and all that fancy security they have in there, and keeping that place maintained.

not to stray off topic, but the people on deathrow apparently throw feces or urine etc... disgusting, vile smelling things at the guards when they go by to give them food. theres some real scary stories of an inmate infecting a guard with hiv.

i wonder when we'll go so far as to leave criminals on an island with no supervision.
again, innocents ending up there would be a concern i suppose.


----------



## Blake1970 (Sep 22, 2011)

I heard they just shoot them or give them a lethal injection over in China. I think the bullet would be a cost effective way of getting rid of death row inmates in the United States. I think if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they did commit the crime than I say shoot them. Saves me money.


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

as much as i like that idea, china has an unmeasurable level of corruption. i bet more innocents die in china than america, but the thing is that over there they don't give a shit who dies. at least in america, people can protest which probably prolonged troy davis' execution. that and unreliable witnessess, lack of evidence.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 22, 2011)

Blake1970 said:


> I think if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they did commit the crime than I say shoot them. Saves me money.



Exactly. I've never understood in such cases where the evidence is just insurmountable why the inmate stays for 20 years on death row. Cases, as I mentioned earlier, where the killer was caught clearly on camera in addition to being witnessed by several people and in addition to admitting it and also having kept a journal with his intentions. Why in such a circumstance as that does it take up to 20 years before they execute the person??? Makes no sense IMO. There could simply be a list of requirements that need be met where they can then speedily execute the individual and save money. Of course... this type of situation with that much evidence rarely occurs so it wouldn't really save all that much money I guess since it would happen so rarely.


Rev.


----------



## Blake1970 (Sep 22, 2011)

Yeah don't get me wrong I don't want an innocent man put to death or even be incarcerated. I don't know anything about the Troy Davis case so I will not comment about it. I do believe and support the death penalty however.


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

Child-killer Clifford Olson dying of cancer: Victims' families

scum like this should have died long ago, yet he lived in a cell(canadian, which is probably more sanitary than an american. not too insult, but canada is a little too lenient with criminals in that aspect so thats why it's probably cleaner).
now he's moved to a nice hospital which will treat him with great care before he passes...


----------



## Sephael (Sep 22, 2011)

Blake1970 said:


> I heard they just shoot them or give them a lethal injection over in China. I think the bullet would be a cost effective way of getting rid of death row inmates in the United States. I think if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they did commit the crime than I say shoot them. Saves me money.


call me old fashion, but a guillotine is reusable and thus eco and economically friendly compared to alternatives.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 22, 2011)

Sephael said:


> call me old fashion, but a guillotine is reusable


 
So's a sledgehammer, and it takes up less space and doesn't have to be sharpened .

INB4 NEG REP: It was a joke. I honestly don't really know where I stand on captial punishment. I have that same gut reaction that many have that tells me "Look what that person did! Clearly they deserve to die!", but I also think killing someone is a piss poor way to teach them a lesson. I can't really think of any other teaching methods that end with the student's death. I also have a bit of a cruel streak, I think, because at times I feel the death penalty is taking it easy on a person when you could punish them much more thoroughly by making the rest of their life a living hell.

Being human is weird sometimes...


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Blake1970 said:


> I think if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they did commit the crime than I say shoot them. Saves me money.



That's an rather callous take on it. The money involved shouldn't even enter into things. I'd rather see my nation bankrupt with a justice system that didn't kill human beings than gloriously wealthy but having executed a single criminal whilst I live here.

Were the UK ever to reinstate the death penalty I'd move abroad. And be very sad. But fuck living in a nation using such abhorrently uncivilised punishments. Virtually zero chance of that ever happening though thankfully.


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> That's an rather callous take on it. The money involved shouldn't even enter into things. I'd rather see my nation bankrupt with a justice system that didn't kill human beings than gloriously wealthy but having executed a single criminal whilst I live here.
> 
> Were the UK ever to reinstate the death penalty I'd move abroad. And be very sad. But fuck living in a nation using such abhorrently uncivilised punishments. Virtually zero chance of that ever happening though thankfully.


 
calm down, my friend. i think we have to see the pros and con of this.
i am a very, VERY black and white person. i am either yes or no,
go on top or don't go at all kind of person.... with that said, i can see myself taking this
in a grey approach because of the sensitivity of this law.

i'd like to ask you though; is it really worth having a rapist go free after he has fooled his probationary officers in thinking he has cleaned up? granted, it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen.

in bc, very recently, a sex offender just kidnapped a child. the child was returned but the man has several sexual offences against minors. the child seems unharmed, but mentally... who knows. how this child will be effected in his laters years, we don't know. what he too becomes a threat?

all, i am saying is; people who bring no good to the table and only want to offer no good... they should be put down.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 22, 2011)

murakami said:


> i'd like to ask you though; is it really worth having a rapist go free after he has fooled his probationary officers in thinking he has cleaned up? granted, it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen.
> 
> in bc, very recently, a sex offender just kidnapped a child. the child was returned but the man has several sexual offences against minors. the child seems unharmed, but mentally... who knows. how this child will be effected in his laters years, we don't know. what he too becomes a threat?
> 
> all, i am saying is; people who bring no good to the table and only want to offer no good... they should be put down.


Who determines what amount of evidence is "beyond a doubt" and, similarly: how willing are you to let innocent people be killed just to make sure that all the terrible criminals get killed? And why is life imprisonment any less of a punishment than the death penalty?

EDIT: Wanting the death penalty, it seems to me in a lot of cases anyway, isn't a case of wanting justice, so much as it is lusting for vengeance.


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> Who determines what amount of evidence is "beyond a doubt" and, similarly: how willing are you to let innocent people be killed just to make sure that all the terrible criminals get killed? And why is life imprisonment any less of a punishment than the death penalty?
> 
> EDIT: Wanting the death penalty, it seems to me in a lot of cases anyway, isn't a case of wanting justice, so much as it is lusting for vengeance.


 
heres an article on some teens from the ukraine
Dnepropetrovsk maniacs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they had video footage and witnessess. true, witnessess can lie,
so i feel we should have witnessess who have similar stories instead
of completely different ones(which i am sure they already do)

i wouldn't throw the death penalty at anyone convicted though. i am a person who needs hard evidence. a video helps. pictures; that can be photoshopped. 

i mean, if it is completely evident. do it.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

murakami said:


> calm down, my friend. i think we have to see the pros and con of this.
> i am a very, VERY black and white person. i am either yes or no,
> go on top or don't go at all kind of person.... with that said, i can see myself taking this
> in a grey approach because of the sensitivity of this law.
> ...



I'm entirely calm ol' chum.

There are no pros.

Regarding your question. I find it an odd enquiry. In what way does opposing the death penalty have a bearing on rapists going free? Life imprisonment is a perfectly sensible punishment for anyone ho is deemed a threat to the public, and if they weren't deemed a threat to the public, chances are they'd never be sentenced to death anyway, so what's the point being made?

I know what you're saying. But to my ears the fact you use the phrase "put down" in relation to humans makes what you're saying a bit worrying, frankly.


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I'm entirely calm ol' chum.
> 
> There are no pros.
> 
> ...


 
nothing to worry about i assure you 

i have to admit this whole time i didn't take into account what you guys ment by 'life in prison'. in the state of florida, life in prison is life so bad news for assholes in florida. however, most other states seem to be 25 years. you'd have to get multiple life sentences inorder for that to apply as 'life' to some of the younger killers, rapists etc...

also, some get the chance of parole when on good behavior. i think we all should take into account that criminals are not dumb... they fucking know their shit sometimes, and they are GOOD liars. they can trick the board of parole with their good behavior and "i am clean" antics"


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the good liars bit. If they can fool one set of authorities, they can likely fool another...


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

i think if they can fool the authorities, then it'll be easier for them to not get convicted or if they're already in prison, they can be out on parole. thats only if they can fool the parole board that is. take in account that a lot of guys on parole seem to break it because they're so deep in their trade, especially when being in a gang.

my point is that if they have a chance at parole, we do not know whether that person
is 100% rehabilitated. and the people who are often trying to change things for the better are not really given a chance at a good job because of their criminal record which makes them even more liable to offend again.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 22, 2011)

@chronocide - please explain why you think someone like Breivik should be kept alive, sheltered, guarded, clothed, fed, and cared for medically. A person like that that killed what 77? What is the reason for letting him live? It serves no purpose other than to burden others, like the taxpayers.

Rev.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Because killing people is wrong. The moral highground falls to pieces if you drop to the level of those you want to punish.

I actually find this quite a hard thing to argue, it genuinely makes me feel ill that people think it's ok to kill people for ANY reason.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 22, 2011)

Well not to be a rude, truly not my intention, but if the mere thought of killing someone, even say Hitler if we were in that time, makes you ill then it seems you might have some kind of overly sensitive Psyche. Again, please don't take offense as I totally don't mean it that way.

That aside, killing a human being wrong is purely your opinion. You have no more right than I to say what is right and wrong. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. And in my opinion someone that murders dozens of people admittedly and factually proven does not deserve to be provided for by the same society he enjoys murdering within. 

*edit - man typing on a phone can be a pain. I've had to correct "ill" as it wrote "I'll" and a few other wrong corrections LOL. 


Rev.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

It's not the thought of killing someone, it's the thought that people think it's ok, at times even desirable. I just think it's fucking disgusting.

In any way we can conceive of a basis for morality, killing anyone at all unless to prevent an immediate threat of death to another, is wrong.

As for the needs of the many... The needs of the many NEVER requires execution. It oft requires permanent incarceration.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 22, 2011)

Rev2010 said:


> Well not to be a rude, truly not my intention, but if the mere thought of killing someone, even say Hitler if we were in that time, makes you ill then it seems you might have some kind of overly sensitive Psyche. Again, please don't take offense as I totally don't mean it that way.
> 
> That aside, killing a human being wrong is purely your opinion. You have no more right than I to say what is right and wrong. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. And in my opinion someone that murders dozens of people admittedly and factually proven does not deserve to be provided for by the same society he enjoys murdering within.
> 
> ...





chronocide said:


> It's not the thought of killing someone, it's the thought that people think it's ok, at times even desirable. I just think it's fucking disgusting.
> 
> In any way we can conceive of a basis for morality, killing anyone at all unless to prevent an immediate threat of death to another, is wrong.
> 
> As for the needs of the many... *The needs of the many NEVER requires execution. It oft requires permanent incarceration.*


This.

And @Rev, also not trying to be offensive: but can you really not think of another way to deal with horrible people other than killing them? And since you seem to be using the cost as an excuse, didn't we just talk about (and didn't you bring it up) how it's much cheaper to imprison a criminal for life rather than keep them on death row and eventually execute them?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> In any way we can conceive of a basis for morality, killing anyone at all unless to prevent an immediate threat of death to another, is wrong.


 
If morality were objective, sure. There are obviously _some_ ways the "we" can conceive of morality where killing someone isn't wrong, or this debate wouldn't be taking place.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

You don't need objective morality. The moral rule at the heart of everything, I feel - and I believe most people do unless they suffer from sociopathic/psychopathis etc disorders, is don't do anything you wouldn't want done to yourself. Which certainly rules out killing people in my book.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> You don't need *objective* morality. The moral rule at the heart of everything, *I feel* - and *I believe* most people do unless they suffer from sociopathic/psychopathis etc disorders, is don't do anything you wouldn't want done to yourself. Which certainly rules out killing people* in my book*.


 
Hmm?

I suppose it's probably outside the scope of this discussion to get in to objective vs subjective morality, or if objective reality even exists at all, so I don't even really know where I'm going with this .

I'll leave it with saying that I see what you're saying, and I mostly agree, but I have the damnedest time convincing my inner (sociopathic?) voice that's telling me "If you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, this murderer must want us to murder him." I'm undecided about it enough that I wouldn't want to be in a position where I'd have to make that decision.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm not sure what you're hmmm-ing at, I said objective morality isn't needed, then gave subjective reasoning as to why we can still have a solid founding for a black/white perspective on some things.

Objective morality can't exist without a creator, obviously.

And the last point I think is odd, they obviously don't want that to happen to them (well, for the most part) but they're not behaving in a moral fashion, so the "do unto others" isn't relevant from their point of view, only from those who want to act in a moral fashion.


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

chronocide - i have to respectfully disagree, because an immediate threat and a threat that is going to be taken out are not that different. 

i wont ask you a stupid question like, "if you could go back in time and kill hitler, would you?" I am sure we've both been asked that before haha



> It's not the thought of killing someone, it's the thought that people think it's ok, at times even desirable. I just think it's fucking disgusting.
> 
> In any way we can conceive of a basis for morality, killing anyone at all unless to prevent an immediate threat of death to another, is wrong.
> 
> As for the needs of the many... The needs of the many NEVER requires execution. It oft requires permanent incarceration.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I'm not sure what you're hmmm-ing at, I said objective morality isn't needed, then gave subjective reasoning as to why we can still have a solid founding for a black/white perspective on some things.


 
Yeah, I was misreading your point. All I was initially saying is that, since morality can only be subjective, then you can't say "in any way we can conceive of a basis for a morality, killing is wrong," since we obviously _can, _due to the subjectivity of morality.



chronocide said:


> And the last point I think is odd, they obviously don't want that to happen to them (well, for the most part) but they're not behaving in a moral fashion, so the "do unto others" isn't relevant from their point of view, only from those who want to act in a moral fashion.


 
Yes, obviously. Are you this serious about everything in real life, too?


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

murakami said:


> chronocide - i have to respectfully disagree, because an immediate threat and a threat that is going to be taken out are not that different.



They're completely different. 



Grand Moff Tim said:


> Yeah, I was misreading your point. All I was initially saying is that, since morality can only be subjective, then you can't say "in any way we can conceive of a basis for a morality, killing is wrong," since we obviously _can, _due to the subjectivity of morality.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, obviously. Are you this serious about everything in real life, too?



I'm being entirely jovial. I speak exactly like this in real life, but one hopes inflection makes all the difference.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 22, 2011)

@Highlord - yes we discussed the cost but I'm saying there should be a way to skip all the needless cost waste. It should NOT cost 37 mil for an execution nor a 100K+a year for each life sentence inmate. That's more than I make a year!!

@chronocide - I had a feeling your opinion was somewhat based on religious feelings. 



Rev.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I'm being entirely jovial. I speak exactly like this in real life, but one hopes inflection makes all the difference.


 
Haha, it must.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Rev2010 said:


> @chronocide - I had a feeling your opinion was somewhat based on religious feelings.



You had a very, very wrong feeling.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> You had a very, very wrong feeling.



Then I hereby apologize 


Rev.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

No apology required! I though the implication from my post about not needing objective morality and only being able to have it were there a creator would have implied I was an atheist, but I guess you could read it the other way.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

I do see Chronocide's point, however I really have no feeling for those who would willingly take the life of another, especially in such a malicious way. When you take an innocent person's life, you take all their rights from them permanently, and you take away a family member. If you do something like that then you are beyond redemption, and you forfeit your rights. You can no longer be a member of society and there is no point locking someone like that up in my opinion. It isn't a punishment, or rehabilitation. They can't learn from it. The only thing left to do is remove them from society completely, as you would a cancer. This is only in very special cases mind, I acknowledge there might be cases of murder where perhaps that person was provoked. In which case, it is harder for us to judge. However a man who kills someone out of sheer malice and ignorance deserves to die, in my opinion. 

I wish murder didn't happen, I wish people just got along, but they don't and all we can do is try and change those for the better when possible, and remove those we can't change.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 22, 2011)

I've stated my ideas on this before, but since this discussion seems to be pretty civil, I felt like throwing it out there again.

If you strip all the morals away, and make it a question of practicality, I think you'll see that living > dying. Let me explain further.

A life-sentence inmate right now is a money drain, I think this is accepted on all sides. What if we could turn that around? Those who are incarcerated want to work, generally for other reasons than the normal person, and I say we let them. Teach them to do something productive, and they start making money. Put them to work, something outside the general prison industries, and they'll start paying for themselves, and possibly help the economy. There's what, like 2.5 million people locked up? I don't know how many of them are violent offenders, but I do know that if we put the entire population to work it'd bump up our economy a bit, as well as keeping jobs in the country.

I know there's all kinds of holes in this, what with violent individuals having access to tools or whatever, but our prison system is outdated. There's no reason, with today's technology, that we can't nearly eliminate assaults and such in a prison. Automate that shit, put barriers the living and work areas, it can be done. I refuse to believe that we can put a man on the moon, yet can't figure out a new way to incarcerate people.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 22, 2011)

Couldn't agree more with the last two posts! 


Rev.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

I definitely think that should be done in prisons, but what about really serious cases like the murderer who dragged that black guy along the road from his truck? Those people are too far gone for my taste. However those are far rarer cases, and for the majority of inmates unpaid labour would be a good option.


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

an ideal world is just too out of reach, especially with how savage and animalistic people are getting these days. i mean, come on; mma is cheered by even kids. how much longer will it be until we have a 'running man' tv show or gladiators fighting to the death like in roman times? that may be a stretch, but mma can be pretty sick. an unconscious person still getting punched in the face... what the fuck is wrong with the guy who's still throwing the punches?

anyways, i think the death penalty should be something extremely feared so criminals know whats in for them if they ever commit a horrible act. i think it should be brought open a select few. 

in the world we live in now, the media is basically encouraging violence in so many different mediums. games, movies, mma etc... the dumbasses who feel they have to put that in action are just not wired right for normal society. one rotten egg ruins omelette so to speak. i think we have to make an example of them and the needle is not fucking cutting it, nor 10 years waiting in a cell to get that needle.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 23, 2011)

murakami said:


> an ideal world is just too out of reach, especially with how savage and animalistic people are getting these days. i mean, come on; mma is cheered by even kids. how much longer will it be until we have a 'running man' tv show or gladiators fighting to the death like in roman times? that may be a stretch, but mma can be pretty sick. an unconscious person still getting punched in the face... what the fuck is wrong with the guy who's still throwing the punches?
> 
> anyways, i think the death penalty should be something extremely feared so criminals know whats in for them if they ever commit a horrible act. i think it should be brought open a select few.
> 
> in the world we live in now, the media is basically encouraging violence in so many different mediums. games, movies, mma etc... the dumbasses who feel they have to put that in action are just not wired right for normal society. one rotten egg ruins omelette so to speak. i think we have to make an example of them and the needle is not fucking cutting it, nor 10 years waiting in a cell to get that needle.



Here's my problem with the death penalty as a deterrent:

I live in Texas. Since the death penalty was made legal again in I think 1976, we've executed more people than any other state. If you commit a heinous crime, it's not too far-fetched to think you'll get the death penalty.

It hasn't dropped the crime rate, though. Our decrease in executions matches the rest of the nation's slight decrease in death penalty convictions, but these crimes are still being committed with the same regularity. No crack dealer is going to stop to consider the ethical and positional ramifications of eliminating competition, collateral damage be damned. 

It doesn't work as a deterrent. Shit, this sounds OT at first, but is a good analogy: everyone in America knows that weed is illegal, and that you can go to jail for it, but it doesn't stop anybody, does it? The same goes for the much smaller number of people committing violent crimes. If the law in any form was a deterrent, we wouldn't need to keep killing prisoners constantly.


----------



## AcousticMinja (Sep 23, 2011)

What I think blows, is that, if he is innocent, he spent 20 years in death row. Twenty fucking years. Not knowing each day if and when you're going to die must really fuck up your mind. That's just torture in itself and wrong.

But yeah, really, this situation was fucked. I was talking to a friend and his Mom about this last night. We were all livid when we found out what happened. I hope people continue to protest and bitch at the government for it. From what I've heard, quite a bit of people around the world have followed this case and no one is happy.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 23, 2011)

murakami said:


> anyways, i think the death penalty should be something extremely feared so criminals know whats in for them if they ever commit a horrible act.



But it demonstrably isn't. So what's the point?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 23, 2011)

chronocide said:


> But it demonstrably isn't. So what's the point?



Yeah I agree here. The fear of the death penalty obviously isn't strong enough if people still commit these crimes.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 23, 2011)

OK, for one we can't say whether it is or isn't a deterrent, there is absolutely no way to base that. Just because people still murder does not mean it isn't a deterrent. A deterrent is just that - it doesn't eradicate it entirely. It will deter some but not others. We have no way of knowing when a criminal decides to not kill someone based off of fear of the death penalty. And statistically murders are waaay lower on the number crimes list compared to other violent offenses. We can never know if someone that was beating the hell out of another stopped in order to avoid killing him and either serving life in jail or getting a death sentence unless the person actually says, "I wanted to kill him but gee I didn't want to get the death penalty so I stopped". No one would ever say that, it would only make them look worse in court.


Rev.


----------



## murakami (Sep 23, 2011)

we cannot be certain, but if there wasn't a severe punishment like life in prison
(not just 25 years) or the death penalty, anyone who has a chip on their shoulder would most certainly try to harm another person. not saying it doesn't happen now, but people are dumb. don't give them a reason to cross a line and they wont. if you encourage it by not having any repercussion then it would be like 'the road' and nobody would care for their own actions. definitely a decline in morale as well in
this century... though the medieval times were 10 times worse.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 23, 2011)

murakami said:


> we cannot be certain, but if there wasn't a severe punishment like life in prison
> (not just 25 years) or the death penalty, anyone who has a chip on their shoulder would most certainly try to harm another person.



Of course. In a different aspect, if you knew there was no way you could be fired or penalized for telling your boss or some other ass in your company to go F themselves wouldn't you do it?? I know I would. I know there are times I would've done bad things if there was no law, but I restrained myself cause it wasn't worth it.

I know for sure one thing... I would NEVER try stealing in a country that cuts of hands and feet!! I don't care if I were starving to death, I would just keep begging. Here in the US if I were under severe hardship I would not have as much restraint.


Rev.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 23, 2011)

murakami said:


> we cannot be certain, but if there wasn't a severe punishment like life in prison
> (not just 25 years) or the death penalty, anyone who has a chip on their shoulder would most certainly try to harm another person.



It seems to me odd then, that if you take the five nations with the highest murder rates who use the death penalty, and the five nations with the highest murder rates which do not, one group has HALF the number of murders than the other.

Guess which set?

A life sentence can be as little as ten years in the UK, but we have a fraction of the murders per head of population that the use does. By your reckoning, we should have an outrageously high murder rate compared to places which execute. We don't. Your thinking is provably wrong.

Every statistic going points to the death penalty being a rubbish idea in terms of keeping crime down. Quite aside from it making nations barbaric assholes.


----------



## murakami (Sep 23, 2011)

it's funny you bring up the cutting of hands punishment because i was thinking about that haha. i know for damn sure i wouldn't want to break the law in china nor mexico. as currupt as those places are, i've heard they keep the criminals on a very short leash. in america and canada they at least get a 1 to 4 hour a day in the open to converse with their gang buddies. in china i've heard the guards will kill you if they don't like the cut of your jib.

jail should be feared and too many people these days think it's cool to be 'gangsta' or fuck someone up to show their friends they're tough or something.

how about that island idea? a island of where only killers are sent and occassionally send a child molester there.



> Of course. In a different aspect, if you knew there was no way you could be fired or penalized for telling your boss or some other ass in your company to go F themselves wouldn't you do it?? I know I would. I know there are times I would've done bad things if there was no law, but I restrained myself cause it wasn't worth it.
> 
> I know for sure one thing... I would NEVER try stealing in a country that cuts of hands and feet!! I don't care if I were starving to death, I would just keep begging. Here in the US if I were under severe hardship I would not have as much restraint.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Sep 23, 2011)

chronocide said:


> It seems to me odd then, that if you take the five nations with the highest murder rates who use the death penalty, and the five nations with the highest murder rates which do not, one group has HALF the number of murders than the other.
> 
> Guess which set?
> 
> ...



you may have a good point there, too bad you had to ruin it all by insulting alot of people at the end.
personally i dont think the death penalty would be much of a deterrent, i think the sort of people that murder in cold blood are the same people that would do it no matter what the concequences were. to me the idea of spending the rest of my life in a tin can is alot more frightening than having my life ended.


----------



## BrianUV777BK (Sep 23, 2011)

@Chronocide

There is a current story here in the US about 2 men that broke into a home, beat the father in the head with a baseball bat, raped the young daughters, took the mother to a bank to withdraw money, went back to the home and tied the 2 young girls to the bed then doused them in gasoline and set the house on fire killing both young girls and the mother. Witnesses said they could hear the girls screaming as the fire swept their rooms. All this while the husband/father was tied up in the basement and hearing all of it going on.



Now put yourself in place of the father. Is "life" enough? If that was your family that just burned to death I 'd think you may want just a little more.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Sep 23, 2011)

BrianUV777BK said:


> Is "life" enough? If that was your family that just burned to death I 'd think you may want just a little more.



i think that can go both ways. in the case of martin bryant, a death penalty would have been an easy way out for him, something that he wanted. he has attempted suicide 6 times since his imprisonment. sometimes i wonder what would be worse: not wanting to die and being killed, or wanting to die more than anything in the world but being forced to keep living.


----------



## murakami (Sep 23, 2011)

ok, taking into account that i live in canada, and the crime rate is much lower... and we do not have a death pentalty law either.... our law is shit. in america you get a lot police brutality reports. in canada you don't hear too much of it, just mishandling of cases by the rcmp. the screening here is apparently a joke. municipal police forces are better but, everyone i've talked to who has had their belongings stolen, the cops do nothing... 


anyways, in england do they not have camera's on almost every corner street? i think they make their law enforcement very present, so i think that by itself is why the uk has a 10 year life sentence(not many people willing to break the law because they're watched).

i think the people in western society are more aggressive than the uk, which results in the higher crime rate. i wonder how much better it would be if america were to have a camera on each street corner. the culture is totally different in that aspect as western is more aggressive and the uk more civilized... though i don't want to go into that generalizing bullshit because i could wrong on that.

you can throw stats at me if you like, but i think there should be a line that should be drawn at some point. or at least lobotomize some of the inmates who are just a lost cause.






chronocide said:


> It seems to me odd then, that if you take the five nations with the highest murder rates who use the death penalty, and the five nations with the highest murder rates which do not, one group has HALF the number of murders than the other.
> 
> Guess which set?
> 
> ...


----------



## murakami (Sep 23, 2011)

BrianUV777BK said:


> @Chronocide
> 
> There is a current story here in the US about 2 men that broke into a home, beat the father in the head with a baseball bat, raped the young daughters, took the mother to a bank to withdraw money, went back to the home and tied the 2 young girls to the bed then doused them in gasoline and set the house on fire killing both young girls and the mother. Witnesses said they could hear the girls screaming as the fire swept their rooms. All this while the husband/father was tied up in the basement and hearing all of it going on.
> 
> ...


 
that kind of piece of shit deserves to be locked in a padded room with no clothes and no way to kill himself. for food, they can throw some old stale noodles. he can sleep in his own fecal matter for all i care... fuck, that story pissed me off


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 23, 2011)

chronocide said:


> It seems to me odd then, that if you take the five nations with the highest murder rates who use the death penalty, and the five nations with the highest murder rates which do not, one group has HALF the number of murders than the other.



So where exactly are you're getting this data from? You're talking about whole nations when the US doesn't have the death penalty in every state but only in several - how can you compare nations when the whole country doesn't have it or not have it?? Also, are you suggesting that not having the death penalty LOWERS murder rates??? That is preposterous as there's no reason or data to support that not having the penalty would lower murder rates. I would rather think the mindset of the larger populace in that area, probably being more educated and more liberal (hence the law not having death) would be more a reason there's less murdering going on.

I just quickly Googled higest murder rates (worldly) and got these two links for quick perusal:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homicide Rate by Country

Both of those links show the murder rates in other countries, especially some less well off countries, being higher. Since it's region based it's much harder to extrapolate the data as to which have death penalties and which don't as each region (country, etc) will have it's own laws. But either way I think the argument about it as a deterrent has already been shown to be a moot point. You can't prove that having it has deterred anyone unless the people committing crimes actually say the death penalty kept them from killing someone. And if they were to say that then they admit guilt and more so that they actually wanted to kill their victim which doesn't help their defense.


Rev.


----------



## murakami (Sep 23, 2011)

^^^^
this man, done homework!


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 23, 2011)

murakami said:


> that kind of piece of shit deserves to be locked in a padded room with no clothes and no way to kill himself. for food, they can throw some old stale noodles. he can sleep in his own fecal matter for all i care... fuck, that story pissed me off



People can bite their own tongues off and bleed to death or easily break their own necks. The thing is if we restrain them in such a way to not be able to do such things it's considered "cruel and unusal" punishment. If someone wants to kill themselves then can easily do it. I don't give a shit what anyone says. If they don't bite off they're own tongue or run head first into a wall trying to break their necks it's because they are scared of that process and the pain or suffering they might entail.


Rev.


----------



## murakami (Sep 23, 2011)

Rev2010 said:


> People can bite their own tongues off and bleed to death or easily break their own necks. The thing is if we restrain them in such a way to not be able to do such things it's considered "cruel and unusal" punishment. If someone wants to kill themselves then can easily do it. I don't give a shit what anyone says. If they don't bite off they're own tongue or run head first into a wall trying to break their necks is because they are scared of that process and the pain or suffering they might entail.
> 
> 
> Rev.


 
i didn't take those methods into consideration... i'd rather put them in a crooked box to be honest. as for biting their own tongue; maybe put some sort of entrapment on their face that doesn't allow them to close their mouth so they can still eat.


----------



## pink freud (Sep 23, 2011)

I think the ideal is to streamline the death penalty process while simultaneously heavily restricting the applicability of the death penalty. 

If you look at the death penalty objectively you will find that most people view it in the wrong context. The death penalty should not be about punishment (which translates to retribution for people), but instead about rehabilitation. To effectively manage a prison system that actually serves society, it needs to be centered around rehabilitation, so that inmates will leave as people who have a way to contribute to society instead of doing whatever it is they did to get in prison in the first place. The death penalty comes into play for people who are deemed beyond rehabilitation. Right now such people get life in prison. I ask, what purpose does this serve? If that person did something horrible, but can be molded to be a better person, leaving them in prison forever is a waste of resources. If that person can never become a harmless member of society, why does society take measures to continue their existence? 

Under such a system the wrongfully convicted would fair far better, as they would be guaranteed release, while true violent sociopaths would be done away with.

Some may argue that executing violent sociopath criminals is wrong because society had a hand in making them as they are, but my response to that is that is a guilt-driven philosophy that has no logic. Execute them and then work to change society so that people like them become less prevalent (they will always exist).

That said, this particular case has all the aspects of why our current death penalty paradigm is flawed, and even the philosophy of our justice system. When you combine law enforcement and prosecutors who care more about convictions than the truth with a system based more on punishment and retribution than rehabilitation you have innocents convicted and the under stirrings of a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality, which the media perpetuates upon the public.


----------



## murakami (Sep 23, 2011)

pink freud said:


> I think the ideal is to streamline the death penalty process while simultaneously heavily restricting the applicability of the death penalty.
> 
> If you look at the death penalty objectively you will find that most people view it in the wrong context. The death penalty should not be about punishment (which translates to retribution for people), but instead about rehabilitation. To effectively manage a prison system that actually serves society, it needs to be centered around rehabilitation, so that inmates will leave as people who have a way to contribute to society instead of doing whatever it is they did to get in prison in the first place. The death penalty comes into play for people who are deemed beyond rehabilitation. Right now such people get life in prison. I ask, what purpose does this serve? If that person did something horrible, but can be molded to be a better person, leaving them in prison forever is a waste of resources. If that person can never become a harmless member of society, why does society take measures to continue their existence?
> 
> ...


 
i have to disagree with that statement. a person with strong will can overcome almost all adversaries. a person blaming fate or a horrible incident that fell upon them is merely a scapegoat, and a person who feels they shouldn't take responsibility of their own action is just not worth my time.

shannon sharpe and his brother, both amazing football players, were born in horrible living conditions. they could have easily taken the easy route, yet they fought hard to where they are today and they are now, well respected amongst their peers. they had a well wired head. some people are just wired wrong, and i guess we can blame their genetics rather than society because they took in information and influence in the wrong direction.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 23, 2011)

pink freud said:


> The death penalty should not be about punishment (which translates to retribution for people), but instead about rehabilitation. To effectively manage a prison system that actually serves society, it needs to be centered around rehabilitation, so that inmates will leave as people who have a way to contribute to society instead of doing whatever it is they did to get in prison in the first place.



Good post overall  I just wanted to ask you about this part though. Do you personally feel someone like Breivik that murdered 76 people should be released if he showed himself as fully rehabilitated and no longer a threat to society? Is there anything he can do to make everyone forget killing 76 people and ruining not just their lives but potentially several family members lives that have a hard time dealing with their loss? There are times some family members commit suicide later cause of the mental torment they deal with thinking and dreaming about it daily. Sometimes they can't function at work. The brain can be very sensitive and easily damaged.

So is there any reason we should also *trust* such a person as him is rehabilitated? How can we know he's not tricking us by doing and saying exactly what we want to hear to get out and murder again? Or even just to get out and have gotten away with minimal punishment?

I'm talking severe cases here though so don't get me wrong. I'm not referring to petty thieves, minor offenses, etc. I mean the real reeeaal bad kind - which often happen to be the one's on death row save for an unfortunate few.


Rev.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 23, 2011)

I still gotta say, life sentence > death penalty (at least if we used the system I proposed). 

Having been locked up, I can tell you that no one likes that shit. The people who seem to thrive off it are the ones who thrive off misery, not incarceration. They're almost biologically inclined to find themselves in shit situations. 

There's simply no reason to kill people. I seriously don't care what kind of fucked up situation you give me, if I have enough to time to think about it, I will not kill someone. Sure, if I walked in on my parents being murdered I'd fuck somebody up, but in the case of a trial, no, I would not be like those pitiful people crying for another death to make up their loss. Keep in mind that death row inmates have families too, families who feel just as much pain.

Rehabilitation only works on people who are twisted because society made them so, not those with a genetic disposition towards anti-social behavior. I wouldn't suggest killing people who won't contribute to society, I suggest you give them no other alternative. Use them, don't kill them. A dead man can't grind flour, or box auto parts, but a cold-blooded axe murderer can, and intellectually, that has to be the best conclusion to come too. Not satisfying, but still the best.

As for it being a deterrent, I think you _can_ make extremely educated guesses with the statistics we have. If the murder rate didn't drop when people started getting the shot (in Texas, over time), either it doesn't influence behavior, or it did, but there was a corresponding increase in those crimes simultaneously.


----------



## pink freud (Sep 23, 2011)

Rev2010 said:


> Good post overall  I just wanted to ask you about this part though. Do you personally feel someone like Breivik that murdered 76 people should be released if he showed himself as fully rehabilitated and no longer a threat to society? Is there anything he can do to make everyone forget killing 76 people and ruining not just their lives but potentially several family members lives that have a hard time dealing with their loss? There are times some family members commit suicide later cause of the mental torment they deal with thinking and dreaming about it daily. Sometimes they can't function at work. The brain can be very sensitive and easily damaged.
> 
> So is there any reason we should also *trust* such a person as him is rehabilitated? How can we know he's not tricking us by doing and saying exactly what we want to hear to get out and murder again? Or even just to get out and have gotten away with minimal punishment?
> 
> ...



I'd say that a person who kills that many people is probably already shown to be a violent sociopath. "Crimes of passion" that result in murder don't have high body counts. If a person premeditates murder they are sociopathic, simply (or Liam Neeson in Taken).


----------



## chronocide (Sep 23, 2011)

Rev2010 said:


> So where exactly are you're getting this data from?



United Nations Development program



> You're talking about whole nations when the US doesn't have the death penalty in every state but only in several - how can you compare nations when the whole country doesn't have it or not have it??



Keep comparing the ones that do to the ones that don't then. That's evidence enough.

For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9
For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8
For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3



> Also, are you suggesting that not having the death penalty LOWERS murder rates???



No.



> I think the argument about it as a deterrent has already been shown to be a moot point. You can't prove that having it has deterred anyone unless the people committing crimes actually say the death penalty kept them from killing someone.



You might not be able to prove it, but we can make educated guesses based on what statistics show. Which is that it does not act as a deterrent. 



BrianUV777BK said:


> @Chronocide
> 
> There is a current story here in the US about 2 men that broke into a home, beat the father in the head with a baseball bat, raped the young daughters, took the mother to a bank to withdraw money, went back to the home and tied the 2 young girls to the bed then doused them in gasoline and set the house on fire killing both young girls and the mother. Witnesses said they could hear the girls screaming as the fire swept their rooms. All this while the husband/father was tied up in the basement and hearing all of it going on.
> 
> ...



No doubt I would. Which is why we don't have victims of crime decide on sentencing in any nation with a remotely sensible approach to JUSTICE as opposed to vengeance.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 23, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Keep comparing the ones that do to the ones that don't then. That's evidence enough.



No, it's not enough evidence. For one, I don't know which States these are listed here. Population makes a huge difference in murder rates for one, not meaning on the level of how many but the fact that more people in crowded cities are more likely to act out violently than those in a sparse quiet community (stress levels anyone?). Then there's the per capita income, quality of life, and a number of other factors.

Sorry, but you're still not convincing me here. Simple straight out numbers might be a good statistic but that is all it is, a statistic, it only details the numbers it does take in other factors that can denote the *reason* why the numbers are such. Exact proof to this point is that the murder rates are lower in the states without the death penalty. That says right there that the statistics have no bearing on whether or not it's a deterrent because there is no clear reason why *not* having the death penalty would make people less likely to kill. There are many other factors you are refusing to take into account it seems.


Rev.


----------



## BrianUV777BK (Sep 23, 2011)

chronocide said:


> No doubt I would. Which is why we don't have victims of crime decide on sentencing in any nation with a remotely sensible approach to JUSTICE as opposed to vengeance.




I don't know, man. I respect your opinion but disagree. Eye for an eye, as they say. I think if you were in a real life situation rather than sitting at your computer you may have a different opinion. I'm assuming you don't have kids.

Part of me thinks you just like to argue with people, tho.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 23, 2011)

Rev2010 said:


> No, it's not enough evidence. For one, I don't know which States these are listed here. Population makes a huge difference in murder rates for one, not meaning on the level of how many but the fact that more people in crowded cities are more likely to act out violently than those in a sparse quiet community (stress levels anyone?). Then there's the per capita income, quality of life, and a number of other factors.
> 
> Sorry, but you're still not convincing me here. Simple straight out numbers might be a good statistic but that is all it is, a statistic, it only details the numbers it does take in other factors that can denote the *reason* why the numbers are such. Exact proof to this point is that the murder rates are lower in the states without the death penalty. That says right there that the statistics have no bearing on whether or not it's a deterrent because there is no clear reason why *not* having the death penalty would make people less likely to kill. There are many other factors you are refusing to take into account it seems.
> 
> ...



I'm happy to take into account any and all factors.

As for population density: Your top ten murder rate states high to low with their pop. densities - 

Louisiana 104.9 
Maryland 594.8 
Missouri 87.1 
Mississippi 63.2 
New Mexico 17.0 
Arizona 56.3 
South Carolina 153.9 
Nevada 24.6 
Georgia 168.4 
Alabama 94.4 

That only contains three of the top twenty pop. density states in the US; Georgia, Maryland and South Carolina.

Maryland has the 2nd highest median income in the US too, as it goes, along with the 2nd most murders.



BrianUV777BK said:


> I don't know, man. I respect your opinion but disagree. Eye for an eye, as they say. I think if you were in a real life situation rather than sitting at your computer you may have a different opinion.



Makes the whole world blind, as they also say. 

You've just quoted me saying I'd react differently if it wasn't hypothetical, so yes, again, I would. Which, again, is why personal vengeance is no basis for justice. It's impossible to retain sensible, objective views on suitable punishments.


----------



## alfaphlex (Sep 23, 2011)

A tribute video I shot and put together last night:


----------

