Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

It too will be a thing of the past. And, simply put, the state allowing themselves to kill and risking the death of innocents os not great.

Perhaps one day it will a thing of the past. But that will be to the detriment of the country. The death penalty is for the guilty, not for the innocent.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[oldbadger]

Perhaps one day it will a thing of the past. But that will be to the detriment of the country. The death penalty is for the guilty, not for the innocent.

Good-Ole-Rebel

The death penalty affects the innocent very much.

Once a criminal has committed a Capital Offence carrying the Death Penalty, then they have nothing to lose by killing and killing in order to evade capture, or to commit more crimes.

And both the UK and US have executed so many innocents that this shows how dangerous our verdicts can be.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

The death penalty affects the innocent very much.

Once a criminal has committed a Capital Offence carrying the Death Penalty, then they have nothing to lose by killing and killing in order to evade capture, or to commit more crimes.

And both the UK and US have executed so many innocents that this shows how dangerous our verdicts can be.

Is this how silly the mindset of the west is becoming? Don't kill the killer as he might kill others also. This sort of resistance takes place with many sorts of crimes. Foolish statement.

The death penalty is for the guilty. Not the innocent. It is dangerous. It is final.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[oldbadger]

Is this how silly the mindset of the west is becoming? Don't kill the killer as he might kill others also. This sort of resistance takes place with many sorts of crimes. Foolish statement.

I don't think so. It's common sense. Once a murder hgas been committed the killer has nothing to lose by fighting and killing until death. Much more deadly, many more lost lives. Any with an IQ can see that, surely?

The death penalty is for the guilty. Not the innocent. It is dangerous. It is final.

Good-Ole-Rebel

In which case, ban it until perfect verdicts can be 100% accurate. There have been too many innocents executed.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I don't think so. It's common sense. Once a murder hgas been committed the killer has nothing to lose by fighting and killing until death. Much more deadly, many more lost lives. Any with an IQ can see that, surely?


In which case, ban it until perfect verdicts can be 100% accurate. There have been too many innocents executed.

It's non-sense.

Better yet, go ahead and keep advancing the methods of proof. All the while executing those who are guilty. It's a win/win.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[oldbadger]

It's non-sense.

Better yet, go ahead and keep advancing the methods of proof. All the while executing those who are guilty. It's a win/win.

Good-Ole-Rebel

But innocents get executed too.
We know they do.
That's why we (UK) banned it half a century ago.

Even some US States have figured that out. Michigan banned executions about a hundred years before we did, so we know that the lesson has been learned.

You'd think differently if you or yours got wrongfully arrested and convicted....... yep.... you would.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Again, another straw man sentiment. The penalties handed down from our judicial system has little, if any thing, to do with the feelings of the victim's family. The judgement is justice for the society. BTW, if polled I believe you'll find just as many family members of victims that would be willing to pull the switch on the animal that violently took a loved one from them.

Justice exists for the state? What does the state benefit by killing offenders, apart from financially? All that happens is that the state apparently sanctions vengeance - a great morality lesson, and one seemingly approved by some religions - 'a tooth for a tooth ..' - but where further conflict is often the natural result when enacted by individuals (Honour killings, and such). Cycles like this are hardly progress and just reinforce our natural tendencies for anger and need to harm those who harm us. Justice is also there for those intimately affected by crimes otherwise they wouldn't be consulted so often in criminal cases. Never heard of victim impact statements? Execution of criminals doesn't seem to work as a deterrent according to much evidence so what are we left with - vengeance?

But the point was though - that just as many might want to see them rot in prison (prolonging their torment) as seeing them executed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do understand it entails what comes before. Which is why I support the death penalty for those who commit a crime worthy of death. It is very 'Christian'. (Gen. 9:5-6) That has never been revoked.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You have yet to say what you think about those who, while "convicted," were convicted and executed wrongly. I presume you just accept them as a casualty of the system: "too bad, but what ya gonna do, eh?"

Nor have you answered what you'd think if that person was you...

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

But innocents get executed too.
We know they do.
That's why we (UK) banned it half a century ago.

Even some US States have figured that out. Michigan banned executions about a hundred years before we did, so we know that the lesson has been learned.

You'd think differently if you or yours got wrongfully arrested and convicted....... yep.... you would.

None are executed because they are innocent. They have been found guilty.

Nope...I wouldn't.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[BSM1]

Justice exists for the state? What does the state benefit by killing offenders, apart from financially? All that happens is that the state apparently sanctions vengeance - a great morality lesson, and one seemingly approved by some religions - 'a tooth for a tooth ..' - but where further conflict is often the natural result when enacted by individuals (Honour killings, and such). Cycles like this are hardly progress and just reinforce our natural tendencies for anger and need to harm those who harm us. Justice is also there for those intimately affected by crimes otherwise they wouldn't be consulted so often in criminal cases. Never heard of victim impact statements? Execution of criminals doesn't seem to work as a deterrent according to much evidence so what are we left with - vengeance?

But the point was though - that just as many might want to see them rot in prison (prolonging their torment) as seeing them executed.

The death penalty keeps that particular animal from ever harming another innocent member of society. And it seems you don't understand the difference between justice and vengeance. Justice is when you are tried by your peers, and if you are found guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt, btw) you receive a prescribe punishment for your crime as outlined before hand. Vengeance is when you let those outside the law decide the fate of a criminal. Vengeance would be me taking your life in anger if you killed some one close to me as opposed to justice which would be the state taking the privilege of living from you after a fair trial. Letting "someone rot in prison" is vengeance, not justice. Justice would be the state removing all future traces of this individual from society.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You have yet to say what you think about those who, while "convicted," were convicted and executed wrongly. I presume you just accept them as a casualty of the system: "too bad, but what ya gonna do, eh?"

Nor have you answered what you'd think if that person was you...

I believe all were answered. See posts #(22,27,36)

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe all were answered. See posts #(22,27,36)

Good-Ole-Rebel

Only by implication -- not directly. I wonder why so many people with idées fixes are so often unable to give direct answers to simple questions around those ideas?

But, okay, by implication, if you were falsely accused, convicted and scheduled for execution your position would be "that's okay, it's just the justice system we have at work. No complaints."

 

[oldbadger]

None are executed because they are innocent. They have been found guilty.

Nope...I wouldn't.

Good-Ole-Rebel

So you think that US Courts can never be wrong...? What a laugh...... (black comedy type) .....

Let's just hope that common sense prevails amongst all of the US States at some point in the future.

What is it about many Christians in the Southern States that they like to execute folks? I'm amazed at how many would want to execute Gays or adulterous women. Maybe they get a spiritual buzz out of it all? Who knows?

 

[oldbadger]

.......................

But, okay, by implication, if you were falsely accused, convicted and scheduled for execution your position would be "that's okay, it's just the justice system we have at work. No complaints."

The above sent to another.....
Nah! He'd be squealin' 'is little 'eart out, I reckon!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps one day it will a thing of the past. But that will be to the detriment of the country. The death penalty is for the guilty, not for the innocent.

Good-Ole-Rebel

And yet it does sometimes put the innocent to death (reason enough to abolish it outright) , and its not been detrimental to any society that has abolished it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The death penalty keeps that particular animal from ever harming another innocent member of society. And it seems you don't understand the difference between justice and vengeance. Justice is when you are tried by your peers, and if you are found guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt, btw) you receive a prescribe punishment for your crime as outlined before hand. Vengeance is when you let those outside the law decide the fate of a criminal. Vengeance would be me taking your life in anger if you killed some one close to me as opposed to justice which would be the state taking the privilege of living from you after a fair trial. Letting "someone rot in prison" is vengeance, not justice. Justice would be the state removing all future traces of this individual from society.

Logically, there is no difference between imprisoning such people and executing them - if they can be securely kept from doing further harm - but we also know that many killers are let out of prison because they apparently do not pose a risk or have served their term. We know that mistakes are made - some going on to kill, whilst most probably don't - but what is the answer there? To execute them all - just in case!

Vengeance is what it amounts to, by the state, when many countries have evolved and progressed to halt this barbaric method of punishing criminals. Too much rhetoric in your posts gives away how you think or actually feel concerning this.

 

[BSM1]

Logically, there is no difference between imprisoning such people and executing them - if they can be securely kept from doing further harm - but we also know that many killers are let out of prison because they apparently do not pose a risk or have served their term. We know that mistakes are made - some going on to kill, whilst most probably don't - but what is the answer there? To execute them all - just in case!

Vengeance is what it amounts to, by the state, when many countries have evolved and progressed to halt this barbaric method of punishing criminals. Too much rhetoric in your posts gives away how you think or actually feel concerning this.

I have absolutely no problem looking you in the eye and telling I am and always will be a support of capital punishment. What's barbaric is the touchy feely way some folks want to treat these animals. Also, being stoned, crucified, or drawn and quartered is barbaric.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Only by implication -- not directly. I wonder why so many people with idées fixes are so often unable to give direct answers to simple questions around those ideas?

But, okay, by implication, if you were falsely accused, convicted and scheduled for execution your position would be "that's okay, it's just the justice system we have at work. No complaints."

My complaints would not involve doing away with the justice system we have. My complaints would not involve doing away with the death penalty.

How is that? Do you need it plainer? Do you need more direct answers. Word it any way you like, I will respond the same. I would have thought my simple answers before were sufficient. You understood full well my answers before. You just hope to word it another way so as to change the response.

Forget it.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

So you think that US Courts can never be wrong...? What a laugh...... (black comedy type) .....

Let's just hope that common sense prevails amongst all of the US States at some point in the future.

What is it about many Christians in the Southern States that they like to execute folks? I'm amazed at how many would want to execute Gays or adulterous women. Maybe they get a spiritual buzz out of it all? Who knows?

Well, we praise God for 1776.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

And yet it does sometimes put the innocent to death (reason enough to abolish it outright) , and its not been detrimental to any society that has abolished it.

Not reason enough for me. Reason enough for you.

Sure it has. It lets the murder live when he should die. Letting the murderer live when he should die based upon your 'feel good' emotions, destroys the judicial system. Justice is not given. The murderer is cried over. The people he killed are immaterial to you. You cry for the murderer, not the victims. Need some whine and cracker with that tear?

Good-Ole-Rebel