Political Debate (Death Penalty)

[Disney's Divinity]

There are no such cases.

Yeah...right. I don't have the strength or the patience to argue with you. Which will no doubt earn me another clever comment that I won't bother wasting a reply on.

Yes, that's always a good idea: basing your morality and your justice system on animated films.

I was just saying that if you don’t like to see murderers justifiably end up dead, then I don’t know how you can enjoy these movies. Even if one of the protagonists isn't always the one who pulls the trigger, the audience feels glad that the character dies/given their just desserts (which is practically the same thing). It happens in a large amount of them.

Didn't know I was in the 'real world' where people don't take films seriously. Oh, excuse me, animated films.

[IagoZazu]

This whole deal about the death penalty being "inhumane" and "unnecessary" is outrageous. Is it because they're fellow human beings? Yeah, I bet they sure love their fellow human beings just fine. Is it because we shouldn't stoop to their level? I don't know, they had their chance in life. Do you think years in the slammer is going to change their mind? It's not like all of them get it. Only the ones that really unleash their evil get lethal injection and then go somewhere worse than any of the prisons here.

First of all, life in prison or any large sentence is a huge punishment, but it doesn't guarantee that the criminal is there for good. Let's say a criminal is in jail for 20 years. The criminal is going to whine and complain about how badly it is to live in the jail and will beg to be released early. The judge and parole board is supposed to tell that criminal, "No, you're staying right here," and that would be the end of it. But sometimes a liberal governor or inept judge would release the criminal in 10 years instead of 20 if he or she had "good behavior". When the criminal is kept on parole for a while, the parole board would stupidly think the criminal was not so dangerous anymore and give the criminal some slack. Well, after a while that criminal would think that he or she would have the chance to pull off the crime again and get away with it, thus commiting that crime and going back to square one. This was all because of the criminal's "good behavior" in jail or prison.



Those criminals would lie to get out if they had to. They would have no hesitation at all. Once set free for a bit, they will do their crime again sooner or later. There have been plenty of cases where criminals released from jail more than once have killed or raped someone. If the criminal stayed in that jail or would have died, someone would still have been alive. Why, Charles Manson is still alive! Charles Manson. That man (demon more like) should have been killed years ago! He is absolute pure evil! Now all they do is lock him up.

I can talk about some cases where criminals have been released and killed, but it won't make a difference to the nay-sayers. They could care less. They certainly don't care about the crooks, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, molesters, child-abusers, torturers, and other villains of this society. I bet they're probably laughing at me right now. I say laugh it up, but don't forget that lives have been shattered by the hands of those that only care for themselves.

I'm never going to understand all of this softness on crime. Would I kill all criminals? No, but if there is one guy that does the same heinous crimes over and over again, he has no more hope at all. Some criminals cannot be enlightened. I can't believe that there are those that think people with such evil in their hearts and hatred in their mind can somehow be reformed. We're talking about those that threw their life in the garbage, use people like toys, and take pride and joy into ruining lifes. Such vile and horrible antics are evil. Period. You can't just put them back into society and expect them to be fine and dandy with the neighbors. When they think the coast is clear, they will do it again. They already disregarded the law once, would you honestly think they would learn the second time? If so, you are ignorant. Giving a second chance to fiends is just asking for it.

It's ignorance if you think the justice system isn't being panderous. There are judges out there that will give a certain criminal the slip if it sees them fit. To the court system, it's all about money. They want money to manage the many prisons around instead of going to more needful projects. There is no justice if the criminal is let loose so soon. It's a slap in the face of the victims.

I don't think the death penalty should be used for revenge, but saying that it's inhumane to kill a criminal that disrespects life and has no problem killing innocents doesn't make sense. Might as well give those crooks free cookies and milk or maybe a not-so eternal time-out.

[Goliath]

Yeah...right. I don't have the strength or the patience to argue with you. Which will no doubt earn me another clever comment that I won't bother wasting a reply on.

I don't know why you think I'm such a horrible person. You seem to detest me just because I voice my opinion. Aren't you doing the same? It's easy to throw an opinion on a message board. It's harder to defend it when it's challenged. I don't think any less of you as a person just because you hold a different opinion.

But really: there are no such cases. What was the name of the man that was executed in Texas who turned out to be innocent after all? Police, judges, prosecutors, juries: they're all human and can make mistakes. Why can't you admit that?

I was just saying that if you don’t like to see murderers justifiably end up dead, then I don’t know how you can enjoy these movies.

Because:

movies -/= reality.

[Goliath]

This whole deal about the death penalty being "inhumane" and "unnecessary" is outrageous.

Maybe if you still live in the Middle Ages, or in Saudi Arabia, or if you don't believe in human rights.

Is it because they're fellow human beings?

Aren't they?

Do you think years in the slammer is going to change their mind?

You never know if you don't give them the chance.

First of all, life in prison or any large sentence is a huge punishment, but it doesn't guarantee that the criminal is there for good.

If the criminal is not a threat to society anymore, and/or is not likely to do harm again, I'm against life imprisonment.

Let's say a criminal is in jail for 20 years. The criminal is going to whine and complain about how badly it is to live in the jail and will beg to be released early.

Life in US prisons is pretty inhumane. Yes, criminals have human rights, too, if you like it or not.

The judge and parole board is supposed to tell that criminal, "No, you're staying right here," and that would be the end of it. But sometimes a liberal governor or inept judge would release the criminal in 10 years instead of 20 if he or she had "good behavior".

I'm happy there are liberal governors and judges. There should be many more of them.

When the criminal is kept on parole for a while, the parole board would stupidly think the criminal was not so dangerous anymore and give the criminal some slack. Well, after a while that criminal would think that he or she would have the chance to pull off the crime again and get away with it, thus commiting that crime and going back to square one. This was all because of the criminal's "good behavior" in jail or prison.

You have seen too many bad B-movies or listened to too much reactionary, fact-free conservative propoganda.

Those criminals would lie to get out if they had to. They would have no hesitation at all. Once set free for a bit, they will do their crime again sooner or later.

Here's the expert talking...!

There have been plenty of cases where criminals released from jail more than once have killed or raped someone. If the criminal stayed in that jail or would have died, someone would still have been alive.

Yes, but sane and reasonable people wouldn't built their whole justice system on the actions of some persons.

Why, Charles Manson is still alive! Charles Manson. That man (demon more like)

Painting Manson as a 'demon' is lazy. He is a man. A human like you and me. He shows that we all at some point would be capable of doing the things he did. By labeling him a 'demon' you want to deny this possibility. You want to deny that a human like you could do such a thing.

I can talk about some cases where criminals have been released and killed, but it won't make a difference to the nay-sayers. They could care less. They certainly don't care about the crooks, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, molesters, child-abusers, torturers, and other villains of this society.

Yes, you are right, we love these people and we want to cuddle and kiss them and give them presents and all kinds of treats and love them forever and ever.

Black-and-white people are sooo predicatable. Don't you think I've heard those strawman-'arguments' already a thousand times? They're just so easy and lazy and so easily disputed that, indeed, I can't help but laugh at the simplicity of your worldview.

I'm never going to understand all of this softness on crime. Would I kill all criminals? No, but if there is one guy that does the same heinous crimes over and over again, he has no more hope at all. Some criminals cannot be enlightened. I can't believe that there are those that think people with such evil in their hearts and hatred in their mind can somehow be reformed.

From your post, it appears YOU'RE the one with hatred in your mind.

We're talking about those that threw their life in the garbage, use people like toys, and take pride and joy into ruining lifes. Such vile and horrible antics are evil. Period. You can't just put them back into society and expect them to be fine and dandy with the neighbors.

No, better pay a lot of money for them to sit in their cells or paying for their executuon, rather than having them contributue to society, eh? Vengeance troubles rational thinking.

European countries don't have the death penalty. Murder rates are much lower than in the US and other countries which do have death penalty.

[Jules]

*post edited*

[Goliath]

I'm sorry to hear that, J.C.

Listen to Goliath. The stuff he says makes sense.

Well, I may have made it look a bit like I was personally attacking IagoZazu, which was not my intention. I hope he doesn't hold it against me. But I do stand by what I said: proponents of the death penalty often don't have rational or factual arguments.

How many people have been released from death row in the last decade? A *lot* of people! Thanks to new techniques (like DNA-testing), it was proven they didn't commit the crimes for which they were convicted. Now imagine that those people would already have been executed. Oops! A person who serves a life imprisonment can be released after finding out their innocence. But you can't bring back the dead.

[Disney's Divinity]

But really: there are no such cases. What was the name of the man that was executed in Texas who turned out to be innocent after all? Police, judges, prosecutors, juries: they're all human and can make mistakes. Why can't you admit that?

Funny, I wasn't aware I said anywhere in my past two posts that courts don't make mistakes. Unless I'm mistaken ( ), I made it all too clear that I would want any possible cases dealing with death penalty as an option to be taken with utmost care (perhaps being allowed to be appealed one or two times). I know people lie, I know there are anomalies (which I made all too clear in my post, that mentally impaired, crimes of passion, etc. are special cases where the death penalty should never come into play). But the courts, the juries, the judges, etc. are not always wrong. And usually after being tried twice, the truth comes out if the criminal is innocent (I was just reading that most cases, once tried again, usually don't succeed in getting the death sentence). But there are cases where the individual knows perfectly well what they're doing, there's enough evidence to prove it, and that deserve the death penalty, imo. And most of the time when someone's been raped or molested, there is evidence. If there wasn't proof that the person had been raped/molested, then of course a death penalty wouldn't/shouldn't even come as an option. I would question why someone's even on trial.

Because:

movies -/= reality.

You're right, real people don't make movies, or watch them, or relate to them. In fact, I don't even understand why we watch movies, read books, or anything at all, because there's nothing true or real to come from them. They're all just forms of escapism, with no basis or reflection on reality.

Maybe if you still live in the Middle Ages, or in Saudi Arabia, or if you don't believe in human rights.

Believing someone who violates human rights should be put to death doesn't violate human rights, imo. They gave up their rights when they violated someone else's.

You never know if you don't give them the chance.

If the criminal is not a threat to society anymore, and/or is not likely to do harm again, I'm against life imprisonment.

That's ludacris. Even if I didn't support the death penalty, I certainly would agree with life imprisonment. I'm not going to take a chance that "they got better" and they're "not a threat to society anymore." After all, who can truly know if they're better? Don't therapists, judges, social workers, etc. make mistakes? Aren't they human? And what about those individuals who may or may not end up as their second, fourth, thirtieth victim, just because we wanted to give them a second chance? As far as I'm concerned, once you've violated someone else's rights to that extent, you don't get second chances. Not outside a prison wall at any rate.

Life in US prisons is pretty inhumane. Yes, criminals have human rights, too, if you like it or not.

And they don't deserve it? Again, even disregarding capital punishment as an option, I'm not going to have sympathy for a murderer or a rapist or a pedophile just because jail is "hard." As I said before, I don't agree that someone has rights once they violate someone else's to that extent. They're in prison to make our lives easier, not the other way around.

You have seen too many bad B-movies or listened to too much reactionary, fact-free conservative propoganda.

Here's the expert talking...!

And all his points, arguments, and thoughts are swept away by a condescending remark and a blanket statement. Yes, that's the kind of debate everyone I look forward to.

And, just as a general comment, I don't consider myself Republican or conservative. It just seems that when I end up on the opposite of extremists, I come out looking that way (I would be more conservative than the far left extremists, but I wouldn't call myself a conservative--I shudder at the thought).

Yes, but sane and reasonable people wouldn't built their whole justice system on the actions of some persons.

But sane and reasonable people wouldn't risk the lives (literally) of the innocent just to give a second chance to people who don't deserve one. We're not talking about drunk driving or drug possession, we're talking about cases where someone deliberately and knowingly kills, rapes or molests someone. Knowing full-well what the consequences are and not caring (or just thinking they can get away with it--either by not getting caught or lying their way out of jail in 8 to 10 years).

Painting Manson as a 'demon' is lazy. He is a man. A human like you and me. He shows that we all at some point would be capable of doing the things he did. By labeling him a 'demon' you want to deny this possibility. You want to deny that a human like you could do such a thing.

Yes, every person on the planet is capable of doing anything. That doesn't mean every person would. And those that do are punishable--they give up any rights they had, imo. This doesn't even have to do with a revenge mentality (to me, that's the smallest factor, but which you seem to exploit in order to label us all as "irrational")--it's about keeping the rest of society safe.

From your post, it appears YOU'RE the one with hatred in your mind.

To you. But then you would have to know someone to say that.

Murder rates are much lower than in the US and other countries which do have death penalty.

And that means...what? The existence of the death penalty contributes to higher crime? You mean parents, media, history, the government, the economy, racism, the weather, and who-knows-what-else has nothing to do with it? High rates of criminal behavior is such a complicated and inter-related issue, that I can't help but laugh at the fact that you can try to pin one thing like the death penalty as the cause or as a cause at all. I suppose if those countries ate more sandwiches than the ones with lower amounts of crime, bread would be the cause.

How many people have been released from death row in the last decade? A *lot* of people! Thanks to new techniques (like DNA-testing), it was proven they didn't commit the crimes for which they were convicted. Now imagine that those people would already have been executed. Oops!

And the fact that the innocent weren't excecuted (or the sentences were lightened) means...? I guess maybe the courts actually did the right thing (impossible though it must be); the process went right in those cases. But not in all cases is the criminal innocent or caught up in some other factors (being deranged, under-age, impaired, crimes of passion, etc.).

As for something said earlier (I suppose by Margos) that many would decide to kill anyone: that's a nonsensical scare tactic. A gay person doesn't violate someone else's rights by being gay. A black man doesn't violate someone else's rights by being black. An adulteror doesn't violate someone else's rights (to such an extent to warrant legal measures) by committing adultery. Killing someone violates a person's rights--mainly stripping them of their rights. And so with raping and molesting someone. We're not talking about backwood hicks deciding who they think should live and die according to the latest King James Bible translation, we're talking about a court proceeding.

But I do stand by what I said: proponents of the death penalty often don't have rational or factual arguments.

Of course not. I don't remember reading or participating in a debate with you where the other side is ever rational. We're all just idiots running around with our heads cut off.

And I replied only because you tried to make it seem as if I was "afraid" or "incapable" of defending my argument. As if, just because I don't enjoy debating with you, I can't defend myself. Which pisses me off. And that's why " seem to detest [you]."

[Margos]

As for something said earlier (I suppose by Margos) that many would decide to kill anyone: that's a nonsensical scare tactic. A gay person doesn't violate someone else's rights by being gay. A black man doesn't violate someone else's rights by being black. An adulteror doesn't violate someone else's rights (to such an extent to warrant legal measures) by committing adultery. Killing someone violates a person's rights--mainly stripping them of their rights. And so with raping and molesting someone. We're not talking about backwood hicks deciding who they think should live and die according to the latest King James Bible translation, we're talking about a court proceeding.

You're taking my words out of context, Disney's Divinity. I was talking to Siren at the time, because instead of discussing "court proceedings" or real legalities, she was talking about whether or not human beings "deserve to live." And no, that's not the kind of language generally used by any legal system, except maybe Germany's in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Maybe Siren doesn't think that rapists "deserve to live." Well, OK. Maybe someone doesn't think that people with freckles "deserves to live." Maybe someone doesn't think that people named Frank "deserve to live." And you know that there are people out there who think that minorities, whether racial or sexual, and disabled people do not "deserve to live." No matter who you're talking about, phrases like that demonstrate a certain cold-bloodedness, comparable to the attitude of any murderer. Not the actions, mind you, but certainly the mindset.

[Disney Duster]

IagoZazu, don't you like Jafar a lot? Why, after everything you said?

Disney's Divinity, human rights are not conditional. As long as you are human you have human rights. And when you commit a crime to someone, like steal from them or even just hit them, suddenly you don't have human rights yourself? Unfortunately, to rape and kill is also human...

Anyway, to everyone, do unto others as you would have them do to you. If you wish to be forgiven for a mistake or bad deed you did, do the same for others. Always be kind, even to others that are not kind.

I certainly believe in protecting people from crime commiters by keeping them in jail, but no more than that.

I don't believe anyone is evil, and maybe some people unfortunately don't have the choice to not enjoy murder, like we can't choose to not like a certain food or movie. Hey, some people enjoy killing animals. It must be very hard to change someone if they truly enjoy crime. They may be able to change, but it must be very hard for them.

[Goliath]

Funny, I wasn't aware I said anywhere in my past two posts that courts don't make mistakes. Unless I'm mistaken, I made it all too clear that I would want any possible cases dealing with death penalty as an option to be taken with utmost care (perhaps being allowed to be appealed one or two times). I know people lie, I know there are anomalies (which I made all too clear in my post, that mentally impaired, crimes of passion, etc. are special cases where the death penalty should never come into play). But the courts, the juries, the judges, etc. are not always wrong.

But how do you know when they are right and when they are wrong? You can't know. Suppose they have two trials. Suppose they're mistaken twice. Is that unlikely? I don't know. Is it possible they get it wrong twice? You bet. Can you bring back a person who has been wrongfully executed?

[...] And most of the time when someone's been raped or molested, there is evidence. If there wasn't proof that the person had been raped/molested, then of course a death penalty wouldn't/shouldn't even come as an option.

Death penalty for rape? Does that even exist?

You're right, real people don't make movies, or watch them, or relate to them. In fact, I don't even understand why we watch movies, read books, or anything at all, because there's nothing true or real to come from them. They're all just forms of escapism, with no basis or reflection on reality.

Do you find pleasure in playing stupid? In pretending you don't know what I'm talking about? In making up mind-boggling 'logic', just to cause me to get a headache from reading it? Look, you've said it yourself: it's escapism! It's fiction! If you think people should think and act like what they see in the movies, you're not attached to reality.

Believing someone who violates human rights should be put to death doesn't violate human rights, imo. They gave up their rights when they violated someone else's.

That just goes to show you don't know a thing about human rights. Human rights can't be "given up", under any circumstances. All humans have rights, no matter what they did.

That's ludacris. Even if I didn't support the death penalty, I certainly would agree with life imprisonment. I'm not going to take a chance that "they got better" and they're "not a threat to society anymore." After all, who can truly know if they're better? Don't therapists, judges, social workers, etc. make mistakes? Aren't they human?

Of course they can make mistakes, they're human. But is it fair to punish everybody for the possible mistakes of a few people? There's a chance the experts are wrong and a crime is committed again. That's the risk we've got to take in a civilized society. I'd rather take the chance that prisoners reform and get back into society and *contribute* again, instead of paying endlessly to lock them up, doing nothing all day.

And what about those individuals who may or may not end up as their second, fourth, thirtieth victim, just because we wanted to give them a second chance? As far as I'm concerned, once you've violated someone else's rights to that extent, you don't get second chances. Not outside a prison wall at any rate.

You have a right to that opinion. Like I said, I'd rather have them contribute to society again instead of us paying to let them sit in their jails. But if you'd rather pay the largely profit-driven private prisons for making money of having as many people in as possible, that's your choice. But it doesn't bring back the victims, and it doesn't undo the deeds.

And they don't deserve it? Again, even disregarding capital punishment as an option, I'm not going to have sympathy for a murderer or a rapist or a pedophile just because jail is "hard." As I said before, I don't agree that someone has rights once they violate someone else's to that extent. They're in prison to make our lives easier, not the other way around.

They deserve to be in jail. That's their punishment: not being free anymore. But there's no reason to make their lives as miserable as can be. Did you know that the worse people get treated in jail, the more dangerous and vengeful they are when they come out? That makes the chance of repetition bigger. So it's counter-productive to make life in prison as hard as possible. Also, again, I want to point out that you can't "agree" that somebody has no rights anymore.

And all his points, arguments, and thoughts are swept away by a condescending remark and a blanket statement. Yes, that's the kind of debate everyone I look forward to.

Hmmm... which arguments are you talking about? I have looked back, but I couldn't find any. All I could find was a collection of broad statements one would expect to hear late at night at a birthday party from somebody who had too much too drink. All his statements were fact-free. Now if he would have thrown in some facts, I would be more than happy to discuss them. Maybe you dislike me for pointing it out when people don't use facts when arguing?

And, just as a general comment, I don't consider myself Republican or conservative. It just seems that when I end up on the opposite of extremists, I come out looking that way (I would be more conservative than the far left extremists, but I wouldn't call myself a conservative--I shudder at the thought).

I didn't say you were a conservative. Heck, I didn't even say it's a bad thing to be a conservative. Lots of nice people I know are conservative! As long as they don't bring up politics, we get along great!

But sane and reasonable people wouldn't risk the lives (literally) of the innocent just to give a second chance to people who don't deserve one. We're not talking about drunk driving or drug possession, we're talking about cases where someone deliberately and knowingly kills, rapes or molests someone.

Whether or not they deserve a second chance is something we disagree on. I think everybody should have a second chance. Everybody can sometimes do the right thing. But people can change. I've seen it, heard of it, read it: people who did the wrong things, but changed and became productive members of society. You're right, not everybody can change. And sometimes crimes are committed again. But I'm willing to take that risk so that those people who *do* want and will change, get the chance to do so.

Yes, every person on the planet is capable of doing anything. That doesn't mean every person would.

That wasn't my point. The point was that Charles Manson wasn't a "demon". It was not a "demonic" act. It was a human act. A sad, tragic, horrible, despicable act. But a human act, still.

And those that do are punishable--they give up any rights they had, imo. This doesn't even have to do with a revenge mentality (to me, that's the smallest factor, but which you seem to exploit in order to label us all as "irrational")--it's about keeping the rest of society safe.

Of course it's about a revenge mentality. Otherwise you wouldn't shove the possibility of executing the wrong person aside, just so you could support the death penalty. Otherwise you wouldn't shove aside the possibility of criminals repenting and reforming and become productive members of society again, just so you can support them spending all their lifes in jail. That's not rational.

]From your post, it appears YOU'RE the one with hatred in your mind.

To you. But then you would have to know someone to say that.

That's why I said it *appeared* to me *from his post* that he has hatred in mind. I didn't say I know he has.

Murder rates are much lower than in the US and other countries which do have death penalty.

And that means...what? The existence of the death penalty contributes to higher crime? You mean parents, media, history, the government, the economy, racism, the weather, and who-knows-what-else has nothing to do with it? High rates of criminal behavior is such a complicated and inter-related issue, that I can't help but laugh at the fact that you can try to pin one thing like the death penalty as the cause or as a cause at all. I suppose if those countries ate more sandwiches than the ones with lower amounts of crime, bread would be the cause.

You can laugh all you want, but it's just another instance of you laughing away some facts, just in order to maintain your (in my opinion) vengeful opinions. And that's why I call you irrational. It is a fact that countries that have harsher, more severe punishments, also have a higher crime rate. Having the death penalty obviously doesn't work as a means to 'scare of' potential murderers, like the proponents always argue. So as a means of scaring of potential criminals, the death penalty is useless. Even moreso, you laughed about it, but it's true: it actually contributes to more and more brutal crimes. A criminal who knows he gets the death penalty if he gets caught, is much more likely to "depose" himself of his victims and/or witnesses, to avoid getting caught. A person who got death hanging above him, will do more reckless things.

And the fact that the innocent weren't excecuted (or the sentences were lightened) means...? I guess maybe the courts actually did the right thing (impossible though it must be); the process went right in those cases.

Boy, you sure know how to twist around everything to your advantage. That's indeed some twisted logic. The fact that people have recently been set free after having sat in death row for 10 years or more, doesn't mean the courts did something right. They were wrong in the first place, for sending them to death row! And if you had it your way, those people would already have been dead, and nobody could have bring them back! And it's because you don't let facts like those get into your way, that I call you irrational and vengeful.

But not in all cases is the criminal innocent or caught up in some other factors (being deranged, under-age, impaired, crimes of passion, etc.).

But like I said, you can't know for sure, so you might put an innocent man to death. And this is of course still besides the fact that it's unethical, Middle Age-d, let you stoop to the level of the murderer, is in fact state-sanctioned *murder*, and puts you in the same category as barbaric nations like Iran and Saudi-Arabia. You pick were you want to be, in what kind of a society you want to live. Me, I want to live in a 21st century's society, with a justice system that's based on rationality instead of emotion.

Of course not. I don't remember reading or participating in a debate with you where the other side is ever rational. We're all just idiots running around with our heads cut off.

That's a caricature of me, and you know. And it's yet another irrational thing you said. Only your spinning around the fact that many people were released of death row after more than 10 years already proves that you don't care about these facts. Putting your emotions before facts isn't rational. And now you want to hide that by making an ugly caricature of me. It's obvious from your posts you have a personal hatred against me, and you let that get in the way of your rational arguing.

And I replied only because you tried to make it seem as if I was "afraid" or "incapable" of defending my argument. As if, just because I don't enjoy debating with you, I can't defend myself. Which pisses me off. And that's why " seem to detest [you]."

Where did I say that? Another thing you state about me that isn't true. I never said such a thing. I have repeatedly said I welcome your input and I don't think less of you for holding a different opinion. What's the matter with you (and this is actually not uncommon on UD), is that whenever someone disagrees with you and explains why they disagree with you, you take that as a personal attack or personal insult. Face it: the only reason you dislike debating with me, is because I don't lie down, roll over and shut up whenever you say "it's my opinion", like all the rest of UD does.

[Disney Duster]

Hey don't worry Disney's Divinity, I know your not doing all those negative things Goliath is accusing you of. I got your back.

Like for one, the point how even though we have fiction, within fiction is some truth, and reflections of real life. In fact, I remember reading somewhere Disney always strived for truth within their films, fantasy and all (that was said during Walt's days, I think Marge Champion said it in an interview).

[Disney's Divinity]

But how do you know when they are right and when they are wrong? You can't know. Suppose they have two trials. Suppose they're mistaken twice. Is that unlikely? I don't know. Is it possible they get it wrong twice? You bet. Can you bring back a person who has been wrongfully executed?

No. But, personally, I just don't see that happening in this day and time. Maybe in the 1940s, when DNA was crap. But these days I just honestly don't think a court would seek the death penalty if there weren't extreme evidence. Which is the reason there haven't actually been that many death sentences in the US (where I live) outside of Texas.

Death penalty for rape? Does that even exist?

I have no idea. But I would personally agree with it if it did.

Do you find pleasure in playing stupid? In pretending you don't know what I'm talking about? In making up mind-boggling 'logic', just to cause me to get a headache from reading it? Look, you've said it yourself: it's escapism! It's fiction! If you think people should think and act like what they see in the movies, you're not attached to reality.

You apparently can't grasp sarcasm. And, yet again, if I don't agree with you, I'm irrational. Wow, friendly poster here.

That just goes to show you don't know a thing about human rights. Human rights can't be "given up", under any circumstances. All humans have rights, no matter what they did.

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you and Disney Duster on that. I don't believe you have unconditional rights. Sorry.

Of course they can make mistakes, they're human. But is it fair to punish everybody for the possible mistakes of a few people? There's a chance the experts are wrong and a crime is committed again. That's the risk we've got to take in a civilized society. I'd rather take the chance that prisoners reform and get back into society and *contribute* again, instead of paying endlessly to lock them up, doing nothing all day.

But I'm willing to take that risk so that those people who *do* want and will change, get the chance to do so.

Sorry, but I disagree. I guess this is getting repetitive isn't it? I don't want to take chances for the sake of those who don't deserve them.

But it doesn't bring back the victims, and it doesn't undo the deeds.

Of course it doesn't. But it prevents there being more victims (by the same hands), and more deeds that can't be undone (by the same hands). And that's something I'd be all too happy to pay taxes for.

They deserve to be in jail. That's their punishment: not being free anymore. But there's no reason to make their lives as miserable as can be. Did you know that the worse people get treated in jail, the more dangerous and vengeful they are when they come out? That makes the chance of repetition bigger. So it's counter-productive to make life in prison as hard as possible.

There's an easy solution to that: Never let them back out.

Also, again, I want to point out that you can't "agree" that somebody has no rights anymore.

Aw, that's too bad. I wasn't aware that criminals couldn't lose their right to vote. And I guess you can't lose your right to life in a country with the death penalty, can you?

Hmmm... which arguments are you talking about? I have looked back, but I couldn't find any. All I could find was a collection of broad statements one would expect to hear late at night at a birthday party from somebody who had too much too drink. All his statements were fact-free. Now if he would have thrown in some facts, I would be more than happy to discuss them. Maybe you dislike me for pointing it out when people don't use facts when arguing?

You ignored/rolled your eyes at these:

When the criminal is kept on parole for a while, the parole board would stupidly think the criminal was not so dangerous anymore and give the criminal some slack. Well, after a while that criminal would think that he or she would have the chance to pull off the crime again and get away with it, thus commiting that crime and going back to square one. This was all because of the criminal's "good behavior" in jail or prison.

Those criminals would lie to get out if they had to. They would have no hesitation at all. Once set free for a bit, they will do their crime again sooner or later.

To me, they make perfect sense. Criminals lie (which was the whole point of me saying: aren't judges, therapists, social workers, and so on human and don't they make mistakes, too?). But I guess it doesn't suit your argument for rehabilitation to take that seriously.

Of course it's about a revenge mentality. Otherwise you wouldn't shove the possibility of executing the wrong person aside, just so you could support the death penalty. Otherwise you wouldn't shove aside the possibility of criminals repenting and reforming and become productive members of society again, just so you can support them spending all their lifes in jail. That's not rational.

Of course it's not rational. You define what's rational in life it seems. To me, it's perfectly rational. As I said before, I don't see a sane person taking a chance with people's lives to give the dregs of our society a second chance when they don't deserve one. Sorry if disagreeing with you makes me "irrational" and resorting to "revenge mentality." (It doesn't, but you can believe whatever you want).

As for the death penalty, I've already said that I don't believe that cases severe enough to consider the death penalty in this day and age would be taken to that lengths if there weren't cause--who would take it death penalty as an option seriously in those cases if there were a fair chance that the criminal didn't commit the crime? Precious few ever succeed to that point (outside of Texas), and I don't believe the criminal could be innocent in those cases. After being tried multiple times by different juries and different judges.

You can laugh all you want, but it's just another instance of you laughing away some facts, just in order to maintain your (in my opinion) vengeful opinions.

Where was the first?

In any case, if that's the way I am (and I don't agree that it is, but I'll let you keep your delusions), I guess the pot and the kettle have come face to face.

It is a fact that countries that have harsher, more severe punishments, also have a higher crime rate.

That doesn't mean they have a cause and effect relationship. Making your total point irrelevant. But, yes, I'm the one who's irrational.

Having the death penalty obviously doesn't work as a means to 'scare of' potential murderers, like the proponents always argue.

See, in the US, I was always aware that most criminals end up getting out early for good behavior; I hear it in the news all the time. To me, it seems as if we're living in the world you wanted. Death penalty is almost a foreign thing, outside of Texas, here. We're living in the world you apparently want--explain why it isn't squeaky clean?

Even moreso, you laughed about it, but it's true: it actually contributes to more and more brutal crimes.

It does? Wow, jump to conclusions why don't you.

A criminal who knows he gets the death penalty if he gets caught, is much more likely to "depose" himself of his victims and/or witnesses, to avoid getting caught. A person who got death hanging above him, will do more reckless things.

Here's the expert talking...!

The fact that people have recently been set free after having sat in death row for 10 years or more, doesn't mean the courts did something right.

Really? It seemed to me as if all those court appeals and excess trials ultimately made sure that the innocent weren't harmed.

And if you had it your way, those people would already have been dead, and nobody could have bring them back!

Really--is that what I want? What a transmorphed way of looking at what I've said. What I want is a court process that assures that the criminal in question is the one who committed the crime. I haven't said anything about going off and shooting people the first time they're said to be guilty. As I said before: I'm not naive. People lie and courts can be manipulated. Which is why I said it's important to be tried by different judges and juries multiple times.

And it's because you don't let facts like those get into your way, that I call you irrational and vengeful.

Except I don't even see how those "facts" derail my opinion. Sorry.

Me, I want to live in a 21st century's society, with a justice system that's based on rationality instead of emotion.

You're right. Because I don't agree with you, I'm not rational. Nice "othering" there.

That's a caricature of me, and you know. And it's yet another irrational thing you said.

Really? I wasn't aware--it's the only person I've read.

Only your spinning around the fact that many people were released of death row after more than 10 years already proves that you don't care about these facts. Putting your emotions before facts isn't rational.

Except I don't agree that I am "spinning around" those facts. I addressed them just above.

And now you want to hide that by making an ugly caricature of me. It's obvious from your posts you have a personal hatred against me, and you let that get in the way of your rational arguing.

I don't have to do anything to make you look bad. And, you're right, I made this gigantic post (or two) revolving around the death penalty and life imprisonment because of you. Everything I've said is all about you. Of course. Now you can easily dismiss anything and everything I said as "irrational." Because life itself revolves around you.

Where did I say that? Another thing you state about me that isn't true. I never said such a thing.

See this:

It's easy to throw an opinion on a message board. It's harder to defend it when it's challenged.

Yes, you tack on a "You're welcome to have your opinion" after every condescending post you make, but the tone of your posts says everything otherwise.

Face it: the only reason you dislike debating with me, is because I don't lie down, roll over and shut up whenever you say "it's my opinion", like all the rest of UD does.

No, it's because the only way you know how to debate with someone is by attacking their integrity and overall being arrogant and condescending with everything you say to them. Everyone you debate with is apparently "childish," "ignorant," "stupid," "superficial," and, the new one, "irrational." And I'm sorry that I don't take that lying down.

Hey don't worry Disney's Divinity, I know your not doing all those negative things Goliath is accusing you of. I got your back.

Thanks. It's nice to know I'm not completely alone here (although I know we disagree on this).

[Margos]

"Disney's Divinity
You ignored/rolled your eyes at these:

[cut]

To me, they make perfect sense. Criminals lie (which was the whole point of me saying: aren't judges, therapists, social workers, and so on human and don't they make mistakes, too?). But I guess it doesn't suit your argument for rehabilitation to take that seriously.

I never said either of those things! I don't really agree with the above statements, and do not endorse them. People can change their ways and reform. I believe that with all of my heart. Do NOT put my name on things that I have not said, and that I do not support.

[Goliath]

But, personally, I just don't see that happening in this day and time. Maybe in the 1940s, when DNA was crap. But these days I just honestly don't think a court would seek the death penalty if there weren't extreme evidence. Which is the reason there haven't actually been that many death sentences in the US (where I live) outside of Texas.

You might want to think about that twice. In recent years, The Netherlands have been shaken by two cases were innocent men had been send to jail for many years for committing murder. (In some states in the US, they could have gotten the death penalty, so keep that in mind.) In one case, two men were convicted to 10 years in jail for murdering a 23 year old stewardess. Although the sperm on the body of the victim did not belong to the two men (demonstrated by DNA testing), the prosecutor said this was irrelevant, since it must have come from another person with whom the victim had sex on a voluntary basis, before the murder. Only because a crime-reporter kept the case in the media for all those years, the investigation was re-opened and the real killer could be caught.

In the other case, a man was send to prison for 18 years for the murder of a 10 year old girl in 2000, despite that DNA-testing had proven that no DNA of the man was found on the body of the little girl! In 2004 it became known that the DNA found on the body of the girl could not belong to the man, but this was kept secret from the courts by the DA, because they didn't want to admit to having failed to get the real murderer. But the real killer got caught anyway and the man who was initially convicted was released.

These are just two examples of cases from not so long ago, which involved DNA-testing, where the innocent were still being convicted and send to jail for murders they didn't commit. The last case also shows you something that you didn't consider at all in all of your posts. You think the justice sustem is clean and honest and free of any corruption, but this is wrong. The police can care more about their reputation than about seeking justice, so they can be willing to send the wrong man to prison (or, in the US, death) just to save their reputation. It doesn't just happen in movies, you know.

So, no, DNA-testing doesn't mean no innocent persons get convicted for murders they didn't commit.

You apparently can't grasp sarcasm. And, yet again, if I don't agree with you, I'm irrational. Wow, friendly poster here.

Oh no, I understood it was sarcasm immediately. But it was misplaced sarcasm, as you were mocking my point, which was that policy shouldn't be based on fiction. You mocked that by saying we shouldn't read/watch any fiction at all. That is not even remotely close to what I was saying, and *that's* why the sarcasm was misplaced: because you deliberately misrepresented what I was saying, just like you did to Margos.

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you and Disney Duster on that. I don't believe you have unconditional rights. Sorry.

The point is, you *can't* 'disagree' on that. The US has signed international human rights treaties which explicitly state that every person, no matter what, holds these rights and that they cannot be taken away (or it is illegal to do so).

Sorry, but I disagree. I guess this is getting repetitive isn't it? I don't want to take chances for the sake of those who don't deserve them.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Although you didn't refute any of what I said about the costs of letting them in jail forever, versus the benefits of having them contribute to society. You didn't address that point, but simply repeated your emotional judgement.

Of course it doesn't. But it prevents there being more victims (by the same hands), and more deeds that can't be undone (by the same hands). And that's something I'd be all too happy to pay taxes for.

You didn't refute the point that it's not true, and certainly not guaranteed (as you make it look like) that anybody who's released from prison commits the same crimes again. You base your opinion on assumptions that aren't based in facts. You also fail to mention that psychological treatment of criminals can help them repent and change their ways and become productive people again. You want to throw that all away because of how you feel.

There's an easy solution to that: Never let them back out.

That's indeed the most simplistic, money-absorbing solution. I guess the reason why we're never going to agree, is that you don't accept any nuances in the debate. That's why I say your stance is irrational: you sweep everything aside in favor of the easiest solution (which isn't the best or most productive solution). It's like talking to a brick wall.

Aw, that's too bad. I wasn't aware that criminals couldn't lose their right to vote. And I guess you can't lose your right to life in a country with the death penalty, can you?

The fact that rights *are* taken away in reality, doesn't mean that this is okay, or that this corresponds with the way human rights work as stipulated in several UN treaties. I also doubt that voting is a universal basic human right.

You ignored/rolled your eyes at these:

Those weren't written by Margos, but by IagoZazu.

When the criminal is kept on parole for a while, the parole board would stupidly think the criminal was not so dangerous anymore and give the criminal some slack. Well, after a while that criminal would think that he or she would have the chance to pull off the crime again and get away with it, thus commiting that crime and going back to square one. This was all because of the criminal's "good behavior" in jail or prison.

Well, where's the facts in this post? It's a panicky hypothetical that's meant to play on the feelings and emotions of easily scared people. It pretends that this hypothetical case is exemplary of all cases where an inmate goes up for parole, which is evidently and obviously not true. That's why I roll my eyes at it. I always roll my eyes at propaganda.

Those criminals would lie to get out if they had to. They would have no hesitation at all. Once set free for a bit, they will do their crime again sooner or later.

Again: where is the evidence? Where are the facts? Where are the sources? Where does it say it works this way, and always works this way and always will work this way? There are no such sources. They're just imaginary ghost-scenarios in IagoZazu's mind.

To me, they make perfect sense. Criminals lie (which was the whole point of me saying: aren't judges, therapists, social workers, and so on human and don't they make mistakes, too?). But I guess it doesn't suit your argument for rehabilitation to take that seriously.

Of course it makes perfect sense to you, since you don't value facts and sources. Instead, you base your simplistic black-and-white worldview on personal assumptions that have nothing to do with any facts. I have explained above why I rolled my eyes at it, but you haven't explained why you have swept away any of the arguments in favor for rehabilitation, other than saying: "this is just how I feel".

Of course it's not rational. You define what's rational in life it seems. To me, it's perfectly rational. As I said before, I don't see a sane person taking a chance with people's lives to give the dregs of our society a second chance when they don't deserve one. Sorry if disagreeing with you makes me "irrational" and resorting to "revenge mentality." (It doesn't, but you can believe whatever you want).

"You define what's rational in life it seems." That's exactly the same backward caricature you have painted of me before. This is something you use to relieve yourself of bringing in rational arguments. You crawl into the role of the 'victim' that is 'bullied' by someone who 'dictates' what is rational and what's not. This makes it impossible for me to have any discussion. For, as soon as your phony arguments get called out, you act like a victim. Never for even a moment you will consider the validity of your arguments. No, you directly point to that mean Goliath!

As for the death penalty, I've already said that I don't believe that cases severe enough to consider the death penalty in this day and age would be taken to that lengths if there weren't cause--who would take it death penalty as an option seriously in those cases if there were a fair chance that the criminal didn't commit the crime? Precious few ever succeed to that point (outside of Texas), and I don't believe the criminal could be innocent in those cases. After being tried multiple times by different juries and different judges.

I've already answered to that point at the top of this message. You seem to have a very naive, blind faith in the goodness of the criminal justice system. But it is a very flawed system, which is not surprising, since it's a human system. But you put your blind faith in the police, the prosecuters, the DA and the judges. And history teaches us that this trust is not justified.

That doesn't mean they have a cause and effect relationship. Making your total point irrelevant. But, yes, I'm the one who's irrational.

In fact, there is a cause and effect relationship, which I explained *right after* the part you were responding to. So you cut me off before I could get to my argumentation.

See, in the US, I was always aware that most criminals end up getting out early for good behavior; I hear it in the news all the time. To me, it seems as if we're living in the world you wanted. Death penalty is almost a foreign thing, outside of Texas, here. We're living in the world you apparently want--explain why it isn't squeaky clean?

The death panelty exists in many more states outside Texas, including Alabama, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri and Indiana. But where did you get the warped idea that "most criminals" get out early for good behavior? Is that another of your gut feelings? No, the world I want doesn't have the death penalty and only life in prison for people who remain a danger for society. Oh, and the prisons have to be humane.

It does? Wow, jump to conclusions why don't you.

You cut me off again for some misplaced sarcasm.

Here's the expert talking...!

This has bee proven by several investigations and are backed up by statistics, but obviously you can't respond to it seriously because that would mean that you would have to overcome your emotional vengeful feelings to actually discuss facts.

Really? It seemed to me as if all those court appeals and excess trials ultimately made sure that the innocent weren't harmed.

I already explained why that's twisted and untrue 'logic'. But you cut me off again. Oh no, not only did you cut me off, you cut out my entire argumentation!!! You don't want to accept logic so you twist it to fit your purpose, or you just delete it and pretend it never existed. Well, I'm going to repeat it. This is the part you deliberately left out because you couldn't handle it:

"The fact that people have recently been set free after having sat in death row for 10 years or more, doesn't mean the courts did something right. They were wrong in the first place, for sending them to death row!"

Really--is that what I want? What a transmorphed way of looking at what I've said.

That's the consequence of not accepting that death penalty can be given to innocent persons. Had the persons be executed sooner, before their innocence was proven, they would be dead while being innocent and we wouldn't have been able to bring them back. All because people like you support the death penalty. It seems you want to support something, but you don't want to accept responsibility for the consequences when things go wrong. Such support is cheap and lazy.

What I want is a court process that assures that the criminal in question is the one who committed the crime.

Like I said: nothing in this world is assured. Thinking *anything* in this world is sure, is irrational. (Okay, go ahead, and pretent this is not a fact and I'm bullying poor little you.)

As I said before: I'm not naive.

Yes, you are. You blindly believe in the infallacy and good nature of the criminal justice system. Blind belief is naieve.

People lie and courts can be manipulated. Which is why I said it's important to be tried by different judges and juries multiple times.

Doesn't guarantee a thing. The persons I cited at the beginning of this message were tried by different judges. (Luckily, we don't have a jury system.)

Except I don't even see how those "facts" derail my opinion. Sorry.

That's because you don't care about them.

You're right. Because I don't agree with you, I'm not rational. Nice "othering" there.

Here comes the victim role again...

Except I don't agree that I am "spinning around" those facts. I addressed them just above.

No, you spinned them and then cut out my argumentation against the spinning, as if it never existed. That's the only way you can maintain your spinned position: just don't adress the real arguments.

I don't have to do anything to make you look bad.

The demonizing continues...

And, you're right, I made this gigantic post (or two) revolving around the death penalty and life imprisonment because of you. Everything I've said is all about you. Of course. Now you can easily dismiss anything and everything I said as "irrational." Because life itself revolves around you.

And, as Margos has pointed out as something you do, again you take something out of context and then use misplaced sarcasm to deform what I actually said into something that I didn't say at all, but which fits your perception of me, or the way you want other people to see me, just so you don't have to answer to any argumentation (you just cut that out), but instead only have to play the victim and refer to this ugly caricature of me. It's a very transparent tactic.

Yes, you tack on a "You're welcome to have your opinion" after every condescending post you make, but the tone of your posts says everything otherwise.

Oh boy... I said what I said. Not what you feel or think I said.

No, it's because the only way you know how to debate with someone is by attacking their integrity and overall being arrogant and condescending with everything you say to them. Everyone you debate with is apparently "childish," "ignorant," "stupid," "superficial," and, the new one, "irrational." And I'm sorry that I don't take that lying down.

I'm sorry, I have debated almost every regular on this forum, and have never thought of them as any of those things you say. I may have said their *positions* were, or their *points of view*, or their *tastes* or *preferences*, but not the PERSONS. NOT the persons! That's not true. You just want to mix up those two very different things, so you don't have to adress any counter-argument I throw your way. Again: you want to only have to refer to this caricature of me. You can't have your opinions challenged. Anybody who challanges your opinions, is apparantly attacking you personally. That's how you see this forum and the users. You are the only one who I have debated who holds a grudge over it; over challenging your opinion. And I think THAT'S childish. NOT you as a person, but how you handle disagreeing persons.

[Disney's Divinity]

EDIT: Sorry, went to fix my last post of Margos' name, and must've quoted instead.

[Lazario]

Cost effective, sure. But who is the government to decide who lives and who dies?

The government doesn't decide in the USA. The people do. A jury of our peers weighs all evidence and 12 people decide. So though the government decided to allow the euthanasia of criminals, its the people who decide on a case by case basis if someone should live or die.

True. But, that doesn't mean the jury is always right or fair. Not that I'm saying you disagree with that. But you're stating that fact like it's all clean and clearcut and that makes it sound as though you think it's fair. Most of the time, it is. But like anything, it becomes a monster. And the jury system and its' defenses (like the one you just cited) have been used to blind the people to rulings that were unjust and sick. I don't have any example onhand, but everyone knows about cops who have gone on trial for beating and murdering black people and got away with it. And trials of Ku Klux Klan members, historically have been proved that the jury had serious biases.

And sorry, its my tax dollars. I rather see tax dollars go to homeless shelters and not prisons. If you think they deserve to live, then by all means, donate to them.

That's totally unfair.

And I completely agree with it.

Cost effective, sure. But who is the government to decide who lives and who dies? Revenge is petty.

So is the American government and society itself and the entire world around us. Life is petty. No matter what your most flattering vision of the human race as a species is- we are still selfish, self-serving, and disgustingly petty. Even when we're not hurting anyone.

Everyone who is against the Death Penalty make terrific points. And I agree with all of them. However, anyone who commits any kind of crime or offense is going to be judged. We are not qualified to judge anyone, as far as I'm concerned - to change a person's life and take their rights away. At least, not ideally. That's supposed to be God's job. But- he's / she's / they're on permanent vacation. So, I don't blame a single person for thinking they have the right over someone else's life to choose death. I can still think they're wrong and jerk-like for it, but I can't blame them. We are made to feel we have to judge because we're alone. We can't wait for a God to deliver justice. We feel we must do it ourselves. And I don't see anyone on either side deciding they don't want to judge other people (we all do it, really). Anyone who takes a moral position on any issue, is doing so partly because it makes them look smart or tough or caring.

The people decide whether someone is guilty or not. And sometimes, they are wrong. I would much rather see a guilty man supported in jail for many years than an innocent one killed.

Yeah but, if you keep a really evil person in jail, especially for a sex offense, I believe they have to be offered the possibility of parole down the line. And then, the question of releasing them comes up. I'm sure parole board meetings cost something, so that's 1 strike. People don't want to see someone they thought was evil years or decades later, having their crime re-debated seriously like time passing has softened the offense. That's got to be a 2. And just the idea of a parole meeting would make any living person victimized by the crime uneasy, and nobody wants that. Both prison and the death penalty are a way to make us feel safer. I don't think it works very well, but then I've never been victimized by someone who could go to prison for the offense committed. Others have. And I wouldn't subject them to any amount, even extremely slight, of re-opening the wounds just because parole is like a right the prisoner is entitled to.

One side looks at prison as a punishment, but also- it was designed as a form of rehabilitation. Another looks at prison over death as a form of paying for your sins and rehabilitating you to re-enter society. But prison itself creates a whole other psychological reality. "It changes you," to reference a cliche. A cliche that actually holds a lot of hard truth. We do forget that prison is also a place where people are killed, beaten, and raped. Sometimes by people who weren't even incarcerated for sexual crimes or murder.

Look, I guess I can't get through to you either, Siren. But nothing will ever change what happened to you. Will seeing two people dead make it OK? If they die, will it make you un-raped? Will it take away your pain, or make it so you were never traumatized? NO. You'll still have that horrible experience. The only difference is that they will be dead.

Excellent point, Margos.

In fact, think about it this way: If they got life in prison, they'd have to live long lives knowing what they did. Perhaps remorse would set in.

I've seen murderers and sex crime violators cry during their trials. A psychological examination for what was going on inside Jeffrey Dahmer's head revealed that he wanted to die, several times, before he was caught. He felt intense remorse. And we didn't need a psychologist to tell us that. If you saw videos of him during the trial, you could see how much remorse he had. So, what do you mean "perhaps"? Nobody is inhuman. We just pretend to be sometimes, to ourselves as well as others. You still have a great point at heart. And I don't think anyone looks at the Death Penalty as the right solution to this problem. But I think most people see it as the best option we have available to us. Yes, because most of us are vigilantes at the core. Not all of us (like Ghandi, he was perfect ), but almost all of us.

And it's a whole other ballgame when someone has violated you. Everyone here saw how I went up against Siren on the "Legal Age" to have sex issue (and she was flat-out wrong when I said she was). But whether she's putting it the right way or not here (I can't tell, she kept erasing things), she's right about this. Once you've been violated, at least before you've taken a really personal stance on this issue, you know what it feels like to believe death is a suitable punishment for violating someone. I don't personally feel the violation I suffered or the murders of people I knew have to be purged via the death penalty. But only because of a lack of anyone close to me or who I cared a lot about murdered. However, I still don't feel bad about anyone who does rape and murder being murdered by our government as a punishment.

You are right in that killing the rapists wouldn't change the past, but it does put an end to a tragic episode. Justice is made. The bad guys got punished while the good guys saw some form of redemption.

Okay, even I have to say: how do you know that for sure? How do you know that the murder of a rapist redeems anyone? No two people can be clearly defined as "good" guy/person and "bad." How can anyone think that way, or make a statement that would lead someone to believe you think in those terms? Life is not a western. And... can I also say, you saying that doesn't seem any more sensitive or compassionate to the suffering of a victim than what Margos is saying. It's true. To quote something very wise said in a film many people felt was superficial, "nothing makes everything all better again" (The Craft). The death sentence of the criminal can only ease some of a victim's suffering. It doesn't put an end to anything, very much.

I may be seriously mistaken, but I was under the impression that the United States was founded on the belief of justice, freedom and happiness

We are. And some people feel the Death Penalty makes things worse. I disagree. But, they have a very valid point. We do use this as a coping mechanism. And it is a dirty form of revenge, that makes us as a society no better than the criminals. I agree with it because I think it's the best option available. I know how we've been conditioned to think. And it's usually wrong. And it's wrong here. But it's our everyday reality now and has been for a long time. The best thing to do is something we don't have the option of doing- get inside the heads of criminals and "fix their brains." You can't operate the instincts out of a person.

Yeah, I guess I can understand where you're coming from. But, may I share a story? This is something I've never told anyone.... But it should be sort of familiar to anyone who's read To Kill a Mockingbird.

My dad is not my biological dad, but he's always taken care of me and loved me like a real father. He and my mother divorced when I was two, and he remarried. His wife, my stepmom, is a wonderful human being. Her family, however, has some pretty sick people in it. Including her niece.
This girl, kind of pretty, blonde and blue-eyed, claimed that my dad, a big strong black man, raped her. She said he had done it months ago, and she hadn't told earlier, because she was ashamed. Of course, "it had happened so long ago," that no evidence could be gathered. My dad had, years ago, had a history with drugs, that he did quit. He has completely reformed, but that past was a strike against him. His lawyers advised him to plead guilty, and he was in jail for a while. No jury would ever take his side over that little bitch's.

I've never personally felt conflicted about the issue of capital punishment. But all the while, I've never trust the jury system. And... looking at the trials of people like Michael Jackson (who... I must be the only person on Earth who doesn't pretend I know he definitely did or definitely did not do what he was on trial for doing), who I'm sure is not the only account of this happening, juries are often instructed to ignore evidence proving guilt or casting a serious doubt of guilt. The jury almost always complies with the instruction they're given. And in that case, it's a mistrial - it's not a fair trial. And it's only technically considered a mistrial if the jury or any member of basically "finds the defendant" the opposite of what the judge expects them to. Sometimes judges are responsible for tainting the way a jury can "find" and sometimes judges are bound by the court's decision for the verdict- in that case, still not the jury's decision. Trials are very often unfair and juries are usually biased, in fact. Sometimes they make decisions based on that bias. In fact, look at A Time to Kill. I don't know if that was a real case or not, but it's a perfect depiction of 2 wrongs in a trial-by-jury system. They were ready to find the defendant guilty because he was black. But they eventually found him not guilty because of a scenario of his daughter's rape, in which she was white.

I think the death penalty is doing evil to evil. Someone does evil to you, so you to evil to them, and so everyone does evil and the world is...

Another excellent point. And maybe the death penalty is one of those things we ignore that sends a negative message to Americans. But it's too late to stop it from having that negative impact on people. If that's something that helps make the world the evil place it, in fact, is- ending it doesn't change the world being evil. I think the idea of prison as rehabilitator is painfully unrealistic. And I knew (I didn't finish reading your post, I stopped at the above quoted statement) you were going to go-there. Prison is a whole other world of evil. Putting criminals together - bad idea. And it's too expensive to completely isolate them from the human race. They bump into each other too often and that almost never goes well. How many stories are there, by the way, or prisoners killing each other? They didn't sentence Dahmer to death, but he was murdered in prison anyway. And look at the rape in prison. That still happens. There are too many evils committed in prison for it to be a rehabilitator.

Our jails are so overcrowded to keep them all alive there simply isn't enough money and man power to do it. If solitary confinement was so bad, they would all be asking for an injection...The USA anyways has a messed up jail system. Cable tv, weight rooms, etc. Heck, one of my cousins, when ever he is homeless, he holds up a convenience store and goes to jail just so he can get meals and bulk up again.

No, that's not true. You know why jails are so overcrowded? Because you lock up so many people (mostly young men) for just possessing little amounts of drugs, for their own use. They don't deal, they just use, yet they still get thrown in jail. It's ridiculous, they're not harming anybody. Another reason are the absurd high and severe sentences in general in the USA. The average penalty is in the USA is in no proportion to the crime. But since a lot of judges are elected, they have to give out high sentences to appease the blood-thirst of the electorate. And does that make the country any safer? The answer is no. Yet another reason: many prisons in the US are owned by private companies. They make profit of the backs of the inmates. They need their prisons filled.

Damn, that's a good point- G. The reason the public doesn't care about incarceration rates in the U.S. is because of our majority-sense of morality. Our unrealistic, Storybook-sense of morality. We are so ignorant to the realities of drug crime in this country. We just know what's wrong and what's illegal when we see it. We're bombarded with SHOCK-ads and soapy, pathetic depictions of addicts, and Cops-like reality shows with Godknows how many people arrested for having drugs in their car. What do you think we think of these people? Even I think they're filthy and useless. They may just be experimenting but the shows make them look ignorant and dirty and defiant of authority. Prison becomes our only answer, even if there's a better one for simple youthful transgressors. It's our way of somehow in our minds correcting the mistakes that were made raising the little shits. I can't relate to the people I've seen on those shows. Or the families in those ads. I feel the way I think most Americans feel- teach anyone who has drugs a lesson and put 'em behind bars.

How do you suggest we go about alterating public opinion?

And that's not even mentioning that I think one of the reasons people see The Death Penalty as an effective answer to prison overcrowding is because of the incredible overpopulation problem in the world. Why else is overcrowding a problem anywhere? If you think about it, it's not because "America's youth is under attack" by some force making all these kids do drugs. My parents are both Republicans. Guess what? They were also incredible drug users. It was a huge part of the culture at the time and many of them grew up to be bad parents, but not because of the drugs. Though their preaching did help make me the 100% drug-free and alcohol-free person I am today (as did my mother's serious alcholism), the drug use of that time wasn't a signal of oppression forced onto them by dealers, etc. The evils and wrongs everyone commits are the product of bad values.

And you really think juries aren't being manipulated? The way the juries are being put together is one big manipulation. Why do you think many more poor, black people are being send to prison than rich, white people? Because they don't have the access to the good, expensive lawyers and have to accept uninterested, underpaid and overworked govenment lawyers.

I'm sorry to say, it seems you are very ignorant about your country's corrupt and racist justice system.

G - you said it better than I could've. I didn't even think about the lawyers.

Of course, since a lot of people here have already mentioned that they don't agree with the Death Penalty except in extreme cases (and I think they did mean extreme), nobody's that interested in prison overcrowding for drug convictions.

I may be seriously mistaken, but I was under the impression that the United States was founded on the belief of justice, freedom and happiness,

For a very small circle of rich white people it was/is!

(...) begin to demand the military budget getting slain by at least 90%. Over 50% of your country's budget is spend on the military, more than all the other countries in the world *combined*. So don't give me the pathetic "my tax dollars" excuse.

Now, I can finally, fully, and enthusiastically say to you:

THANK YOU!!!

I'm truly very sorry for what you've been through (I have had friends who experienced the same), but you're also an example of why emotions should be kept out of the courtroom.

I have to disagree here.

Why do you think juries are manipulated and the jury system is unfair to begin with? Because people don't consider emotions before they think. They're using their heads, they're just not paying attention. It's hard to explain, but the reason I think all of this is a problem is because people are only thinking of themselves. That's not being emotional, it's being selfish. I think some of the problems you've indicated could be better helped by using emotion when thinking, and considering the other person's feelings. Some form of emotion did make the criminals do wrong.

Emotions aren't the reason the American people are reactionary when the issue of tax dollars allegedly spent on prisons in the U.S. comes up. It's thoughtless-thinking. It's emotionless, if anything.

Margos, there are times in which you really shouldn't comment on a person's tragedies, not even for the sake of a discussion, because then you end up looking worse and worse.

I disagree. If Siren didn't want her (his?) personal tragedies to be commented upon, she shouldn't have mentioned them on a public discussion forum.

I agree with the fact that you're saying this to Pap64. But I can't agree with what you're implying. She really is just trying to give us an example and share personal experience for the purpose of enlightening us.

You are right in that killing the rapists wouldn't change the past, but it does put an end to a tragic episode. Justice is made. The bad guys got punished while the good guys saw some form of redemption.

That depends on your definition of 'justice'. I don't see any justice in state-sanctioned MURDER.

Justice is a very hard thing to define or label. We see so very little of it in the world, it's pretty damn foreign to us. It's basically up to the individual to decide for themselves, when they think something might be justice. It's mostly abused for political reasons.

I feel like The Death Penalty would be doing a universal good were it to execute a bragging rapist. Some people have a deep-seeded sickness, feel women deserve to be raped, and have no remorse about it (sometimes, this is the way it is). It's pretty uncommon. But if I saw someone like that put to death, I'd feel that is justice unequivocally served. It's also, like its' uncommonness, the most unlikely thing to ever happen.

When it comes to murder, of which there is a lot in the world (and maybe most of it... gun-related? As in: it's so easy to kill someone with a gun that, maybe they're less guilty for shooting someone to death they REALLY wish they hadn't, so then, is someone else more guilty than they are for influencing them to want to use a gun in the first place?), it's very easy to feel anyone who meant to kill someone is deserving to be killed themselves. And it's easy to not care about it, if almost all the states use lethal injection. I wouldn't feel that bad if an innocent person dies by lethal injection. And I think that makes sense, because I don't know how painful that would be. I assume death by a simple needle couldn't hurt that much. And I know there are a lot of chemicals, substances, pills that can kill a person without any pain at all.

That makes it easier for me to agree with The Death Penalty. But if I really thought a famous killer did what they were charged with, I wouldn't think twice about sending them to the electric chair either.

Yes, that's always a good idea: basing your morality and your justice system on animated films.

I was just saying that if you don’t like to see murderers justifiably end up dead, then I don’t know how you can enjoy these movies. Even if one of the protagonists isn't always the one who pulls the trigger, the audience feels glad that the character dies/given their just desserts (which is practically the same thing).

How does that work with, let's say, horror films? Can I still enjoy a character dying if they didn't do anything to deserve it?

Seriously though (I was curious though- do you have an opinion on people dying for entertainment value even if they were nice people and/or good characters?), I think you may have misworded what you said. But I get your point and you're kind of right.

This whole deal about the death penalty being "inhumane" and "unnecessary" is outrageous. Is it because they're fellow human beings? Yeah, I bet they sure love their fellow human beings just fine. Is it because we shouldn't stoop to their level? I don't know, they had their chance in life. Do you think years in the slammer is going to change their mind? It's not like all of them get it. Only the ones that really unleash their evil get lethal injection and then go somewhere worse than any of the prisons here.

I don't know what to say here... No, I don't think the Death Penalty is inhumane. Really. Because I know I'm pretending that most people who get it totally deserve it. But you can't prove that they do deserve it, like nobody can prove everyone is guilty. To have a righteous attitude about The Death Penalty is downright foolish. If it's necessary (and I think it is, so I agree with you that far), it's a necessary evil and nothing more. It doesn't teach people any more than a life in prison does. It's a punishment in spite of teaching, it has nothing to do with teaching anyone anything.

Oh, and - shockingly, as a generally left-leaning person, politically - I agree about liberals being the main reason prison doesn't work.

Well, after a while that criminal would think that he or she would have the chance to pull off the crime again and get away with it

This is where you went horribly wrong, IZ. That's not a realistic portrayal of the way repeat offenders are a danger to us. It's incredibly uncommon for people to commit a crime with the premeditation being: "I'm okay to go to jail because I'll get out again." I'm not saying they're unlikely to commit the crime again. I've already spent all that time above if you read me saying they are likely to commit another serious or violent crime because they went to prison.

If anything, IZ, the criminal would think they're going to be caught. It's a product of our paranoia that we think prison makes people criminal masterminds. If anything, it makes them more sloppy and desperate. If they're really screwed up, they want the thrill of doing it again but aren't any better at covering their tracks. Despite the fact that I know the system of checking up on released criminals is lax and incredibly neglectful, that does not make criminals more likely to get away with anything (unless by "get away with it," you mean they think the death penalty is the worst thing that can happen to them). And the ex-cons know that much. There are people looking out for them to repeat their offenses. And though that's not enough to stop them from doing it again, still, the problem is no more complicated than: they want to do it again. That doesn't mean they run around like a cartoon villain, spending all their time planning their crime before they do it. Most killers kill people in a spontaneous act. They may want to kill before they actually do, but they very seldom premeditate the killing.

I can talk about some cases where criminals have been released and killed, but it won't make a difference to the nay-sayers. They could care less. They certainly don't care about the crooks, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, molesters, child-abusers, torturers, and other villains of this society. I bet they're probably laughing at me right now. I say laugh it up, but don't forget that lives have been shattered by the hands of those that only care for themselves.

That part I bolded is a very true and serious statement I agree with. But, I had to bold it because the rest of that paragraph is a bunch of cartoonish baloney. When you say, "they laugh at me," not only can't I tell whether you mean the "nay-sayers" or the "crooks, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, molesters, child-abusers, torturers (do the U.S. military personnel count as torturers, by the way, in your book - and if so, what is the proper punishment for their crimes?), and other villains of society," but the way you go about it, I can't help but feel like you're Dishonest John (not because you're dishonest in any way, but because of how silly you're coming off rather than deadly-serious) cackling absurdly.

And again - were it not for that, I would have to agree with you. Because you've made some good points. And despite your use of logic, I think you're right.

This whole deal about the death penalty being "inhumane" and "unnecessary" is outrageous.

Is it because they're fellow human beings?

Aren't they?

Do you think years in the slammer is going to change their mind?

You never know if you don't give them the chance.

You have to be very careful when making a statement like that, G.

Some people in the U.S. think prison actually does some good. Maybe it has in some cases. But, the way people think of prison as better than the death penalty is very much like: "out of sight, out of mind." But others who have the guts to look, see that sometimes that thing that was out of sight for awhile can come back. I don't see anyone wanting to rid us of The Death Penalty paying attention to the people who get out of jail and who do commit the crimes again. I'm not saying this accounts for most of the people who've been released from prison. But, the funny thing is that even though it's incredibly shocking when it does happen and it makes everyone feel like garbage, people never talk about it. You'd think with America's culture of terror and fear that we'd all know about murder victims and rape victims killed by people who were in prison and were released, especially as I.Z. mentioned, without serving their full sentance. These people slip through the cracks of our justice system more often than you would think.

If the criminal is not a threat to society anymore, and/or is not likely to do harm again, I'm against life imprisonment.

Dare to dream?

Or, are you again really referencing drug convictions? Because I can see (whether it's realistic or not) people let off the hook for possessing something like weed and threatened with an incredibly stiff penalty the 2nd time if they're caught, not wanting to take the risk of doing it again.

Oh, and... Americans don't think prison is all that bad. If we thought we were being targeted by whichever political side we dislike the most, the thought of going to prison would terrify us and haunt us and stress us out to the point where we would become a danger to others... But, for the kinds of people we associate with being criminal-like... we don't think prison is that bad. You're right, it is a nightmare. But, we don't push for the Death Penalty because we think it's the right way to punish criminals - at least, if you take everything people like Siren say at face-value. We do it because we don't want to pay to keep them alive. We pay to kill them, too. Yes. But, it's cheaper in the long-run in the eyes of most Americans to just kill them.

Why, Charles Manson is still alive! Charles Manson. That man (demon more like)

Painting Manson as a 'demon' is lazy. He is a man. A human like you and me. He shows that we all at some point would be capable of doing the things he did. By labeling him a 'demon' you want to deny this possibility. You want to deny that a human like you could do such a thing.

Another KILLER point, G. I think that's one of the reasons he remains alive. He's a remarkable sociopath and one of the most legendary cultist manipulators in history. Almost like a Hitler. Hitler's death taught us very little. But his life history has been invaluable for many. In short, Manson's death would make him a celebrity. His continued living makes him a fascination, but it also makes him pathetic. He's the ultimate caged beast. His punishment is almost akin to taking away his ability to write or speak. He could still influence a few people to think his way, but he can't make anyone else kill.

Believing someone who violates human rights should be put to death doesn't violate human rights, imo. They gave up their rights when they violated someone else's.

If the criminal is not a threat to society anymore, and/or is not likely to do harm again, I'm against life imprisonment.

That's ludacris. Even if I didn't support the death penalty, I certainly would agree with life imprisonment. I'm not going to take a chance that "they got better" and they're "not a threat to society anymore." After all, who can truly know if they're better? Don't therapists, judges, social workers, etc. make mistakes? Aren't they human? And what about those individuals who may or may not end up as their second, fourth, thirtieth victim, just because we wanted to give them a second chance?

Life in US prisons is pretty inhumane. Yes, criminals have human rights, too, if you like it or not.

And they don't deserve it? Again, even disregarding capital punishment as an option, I'm not going to have sympathy for a murderer or a rapist or a pedophile just because jail is "hard." As I said before, I don't agree that someone has rights once they violate someone else's to that extent.

And, just as a general comment, I don't consider myself Republican or conservative. It just seems that when I end up on the opposite of extremists, I come out looking that way (I would be more conservative than the far left extremists, but I wouldn't call myself a conservative--I shudder at the thought).

We're not talking about drunk driving or drug possession, we're talking about cases where someone deliberately and knowingly kills, rapes or molests someone. Knowing full-well what the consequences are and not caring (or just thinking they can get away with it--either by not getting caught or lying their way out of jail in 8 to 10 years).

Murder rates are much lower than in the US and other countries which do have death penalty.

And that means...what? The existence of the death penalty contributes to higher crime? You mean parents, media, history, the government, the economy, racism, the weather, and who-knows-what-else has nothing to do with it? High rates of criminal behavior is such a complicated and inter-related issue, that I can't help but laugh at the fact that you can try to pin one thing like the death penalty as the cause or as a cause at all.

As for something said earlier (I suppose by Margos) that many would decide to kill anyone: that's a nonsensical scare tactic. A gay person doesn't violate someone else's rights by being gay. A black man doesn't violate someone else's rights by being black. An adulteror doesn't violate someone else's rights (to such an extent to warrant legal measures) by committing adultery. Killing someone violates a person's rights--mainly stripping them of their rights. And so with raping and molesting someone. We're not talking about backwood hicks deciding who they think should live and die according to the latest King James Bible translation, we're talking about a court proceeding.

Disney's Divinity... I read everything you said in that post, and I want you to know I think that was brilliant, intelligent, and thoroughly insightful. The whole thing. I might not agree with all of it and your idea of what should be done with the Death Penalty to correct it might not be feasible, but I still think that was one amazing post!!

Death penalty for rape? Does that even exist?

Some states have, yes. I heard Texas has. But that was 12 years ago I heard about that. So, I can't give you names and dates.

Believing someone who violates human rights should be put to death doesn't violate human rights, imo. They gave up their rights when they violated someone else's.

That just goes to show you don't know a thing about human rights. Human rights can't be "given up", under any circumstances. All humans have rights, no matter what they did.

Most people don't see it that way. And I, as a victim of intense violence (not rape, but I've still been horrifically violated) throughout my life, don't blame them.

Did you know that the worse people get treated in jail, the more dangerous and vengeful they are when they come out?

I suspect he did know that. I know this as well. And, that's one of the reasons I believe the Death Penalty is more humane than prison. You honestly seem to feel the opposite is true.

Oh, and... most people supporting life in prison aren't that 'down' with parole as an option. Nowhere near as much as you might think they are. (If you thought that)

It is a fact that countries that have harsher, more severe punishments, also have a higher crime rate. Having the death penalty obviously doesn't work as a means to 'scare of' potential murderers, like the proponents always argue. So as a means of scaring of potential criminals, the death penalty is useless. Even moreso, you laughed about it, but it's true: it actually contributes to more and more brutal crimes. A criminal who knows he gets the death penalty if he gets caught, is much more likely to "depose" himself of his victims and/or witnesses, to avoid getting caught. A person who got death hanging above him, will do more reckless things.

I think you've got something here, G!

What's the matter with you (and this is actually not uncommon on UD), is that whenever someone disagrees with you and explains why they disagree with you, you take that as a personal attack or personal insult. Face it: the only reason you dislike debating with me, is because I don't lie down, roll over and shut up whenever you say "it's my opinion", like all the rest of UD does.

Ouch.

As I said before, I don't see a sane person taking a chance with people's lives to give the dregs of our society a second chance when they don't deserve one.

This is one instance since your disagreement with Goliath I really want to intervene:

How do you know everyone is a "dreg" just because they are put in prison? That, if nothing else, is definitely an example of you disregarding the sometimes innocent people who go to prison. And it's an example of black-and-white moralizing, as I tried to tackle above. The way Americans are conditioned to think that everyone who does something bad or is accused of it is automatically complete scum - when we know, when we're being rational, we might not normally just "blackball" that person. A lot of people who are put through the system for all kinds of offenses deserve a 2nd chance, not just innocent people who are considered for the Death Penalty.

Sorry, but I just didn't see any place there where you made an exception for people who didn't kill, rape, molest (even though that's what you were probably thinking).

That doesn't mean they have a cause and effect relationship.

I'm not sure I believe they do (either). But if they truly don't, how do you explain the shocking coincidence that they seem to?

The fact that people have recently been set free after having sat in death row for 10 years or more, doesn't mean the courts did something right.

Really? It seemed to me as if all those court appeals and excess trials ultimately made sure that the innocent weren't harmed.

Are you sure they weren't harmed? Maybe they didn't die. But, they still went to prison while they were on trial - didn't they?

What I want is a court process that assures that the criminal in question is the one who committed the crime.

You mean- whether the person on trial committed the crime or not. Haven't you heard the term, "innocent until proven guilty"?

[Disney's Divinity]

I never said either of those things! I don't really agree with the above statements, and do not endorse them. People can change their ways and reform. I believe that with all of my heart. Do NOT put my name on things that I have not said, and that I do not support.

Bejeesus. Fixed. Everyone would’ve known you didn’t say it, but sorry anyway.

And, Goliath, I promise I didn't cut any of your post out this time, lest you think I'm "cutting out" your argumentation.

You might want to think about that twice. In recent years, The Netherlands have been shaken by two cases were innocent men had been send to jail for many years for committing murder.

Not to be simplistic, but I'm not going to try and defend the obviously screwed up system in the Netherlands which resulted in the innocent being imprisoned. In both cases, you refer to outside factors that have affected the court (police lying and one judge saying something is irrelevant when it obviously is). Personally, I don't understand how police can "leave out" evidence without being charged with a crime themselves. Regardless, I blame the individuals involved in those situations, not the system or the process itself (which is outside of the US, which is really all I'm focused on anyway).

(In some states in the US, they could have gotten the death penalty, so keep that in mind.)

If the case weren't appealed and tried several times. Not every judge would declare critical evidence (at least, critical in a death penalty case) as "irrelevant"--that's just insane. And I would think the police work would also be important to investigate for an important case such as one seeking the death penalty.

In one case, two men were convicted to 10 years in jail for murdering a 23 year old stewardess. Although the sperm on the body of the victim did not belong to the two men (demonstrated by DNA testing), the prosecutor said this was irrelevant, since it must have come from another person with whom the victim had sex on a voluntary basis, before the murder. Only because a crime-reporter kept the case in the media for all those years, the investigation was re-opened and the real killer could be caught.

What was the evidence against them? Because anything other than DNA evidence and time placement (that sounds weird, I mean "they could be placed at the scene and time of the crime") would seem faulty justification for seeking the death penalty. Which would no doubt be clear if more than one judge was allowed to view the case.

In the other case, a man was send to prison for 18 years for the murder of a 10 year old girl in 2000, despite that DNA-testing had proven that no DNA of the man was found on the body of the little girl! In 2004 it became known that the DNA found on the body of the girl could not belong to the man, but this was kept secret from the courts by the DA, because they didn't want to admit to having failed to get the real murderer. But the real killer got caught anyway and the man who was initially convicted was released.

But this is the fault of the police keeping evidence secret, and not the court or the system itself. Which is why they should certainly have been severely reprimanded (dismissed, charged, jailed, etc.).

These are just two examples of cases from not so long ago, which involved DNA-testing, where the innocent were still being convicted and send to jail for murders they didn't commit. The last case also shows you something that you didn't consider at all in all of your posts. You think the justice sustem is clean and honest and free of any corruption, but this is wrong. The police can care more about their reputation than about seeking justice, so they can be willing to send the wrong man to prison (or, in the US, death) just to save their reputation. It doesn't just happen in movies, you know.

No, I don't think the justice system in the US is "clean and honest and free of any corruption." I know that very well. Which was the whole point of the "I'm not naive" part of my last post (which you wrote off, because you apparently couldn't believe anything other than what you want to). I know the system is corrupt--it always will be. That was why I said it's important for a case to be judged by multiple judges (especially by appealing to the Supreme Court, which I think helps more than anything to get out of the biased environment of the state in question).

So, no, DNA-testing doesn't mean no innocent persons get convicted for murders they didn't commit.

But the ruling of one judge being the ultimate say on someone getting the death penalty is extremely rare (why would any criminal not appeal?). That is the exception, not the rule. As for the police covering up evidence to make someone appear guilty--that is the fault of the individuals in question, and not the court.

Oh no, I understood it was sarcasm immediately. But it was misplaced sarcasm, as you were mocking my point, which was that policy shouldn't be based on fiction. You mocked that by saying we shouldn't read/watch any fiction at all. That is not even remotely close to what I was saying, and *that's* why the sarcasm was misplaced: because you deliberately misrepresented what I was saying, just like you did to Margos.

I didn't misrepresent what you were saying, because you implied that films were completely irrelevant to this discussion (when I was only asking how anyone who didn't support the death of the guilty could still manage to enjoy Disney films when it happens in so many of them?). If film/etc. is completely irrelevant to reality, according to you, then, to me, that's the same as saying there is no point to reading/watching it. Because if it isn't somehow connected to reality, it's a waste of time.

The point is, you *can't* 'disagree' on that. The US has signed international human rights treaties which explicitly state that every person, no matter what, holds these rights and that they cannot be taken away (or it is illegal to do so).

And yet the death penalty and the no-vote thing (which, you're right, is probably exclusive to the US for the most part, but it's a big one here at least) still exist in the US. There's a disconnect somewhere there. If you have a link to these treaties (or news coverage on them), I'll read them and see if they say somewhere in there that murderers can't have their rights taken away. This kind of goes along with my point earlier (which may have been misplaced) towards Margos. Human rights for gays, different races, women, etc. don't derail my opinion on the death penalty. Mainly because those individuals don't do anything to have their rights taken away.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Although you didn't refute any of what I said about the costs of letting them in jail forever, versus the benefits of having them contribute to society. You didn't address that point, but simply repeated your emotional judgement.

I addressed the point later in my post, because I didn't feel like repeating myself 5 or 10 times (but which I'll do now, so you don't criticize me again for "cutting out" your argumentation). I said that the costs to keeping them jailed don't outweigh the human life at risk if they're not. Because rehabilitation is not a 100% guarantee and, again, I'm not willing to risk the lives of the innocent to give second chances to those who don't deserve them.

You didn't refute the point that it's not true, and certainly not guaranteed (as you make it look like) that anybody who's released from prison commits the same crimes again. You base your opinion on assumptions that aren't based in facts. You also fail to mention that psychological treatment of criminals can help them repent and change their ways and become productive people again. You want to throw that all away because of how you feel.

I didn't throw that away. In my point of view, the fact that some criminals get better/become productive and some criminals do not commit the crime again is moot. Because there's still a chance with any criminal (as has happened before) that they will commit the crime again. And, again, I'm not willing to risk the lives of the innocent to give second chances to those who don't deserve them. It has nothing to do with "how I feel," but my support of human safety for the innocent. But feel free to write that off as "emotion" again.

That's indeed the most simplistic, money-absorbing solution. I guess the reason why we're never going to agree, is that you don't accept any nuances in the debate. That's why I say your stance is irrational: you sweep everything aside in favor of the easiest solution (which isn't the best or most productive solution). It's like talking to a brick wall.

Again, the pot and the kettle have met. I feel precisely the same way.

The fact that rights *are* taken away in reality, doesn't mean that this is okay, or that this corresponds with the way human rights work as stipulated in several UN treaties. I also doubt that voting is a universal basic human right.

Sorry, but the UN is a mess (I know that's irrelevant, but just had to say it). And, imo, taking the rights away from those who have taken the rights away from others is perfectly okay to me--and more important to this argument, legal in the US.

Those weren't written by Margos, but by IagoZazu.

When the criminal is kept on parole for a while, the parole board would stupidly think the criminal was not so dangerous anymore and give the criminal some slack. Well, after a while that criminal would think that he or she would have the chance to pull off the crime again and get away with it, thus commiting that crime and going back to square one. This was all because of the criminal's "good behavior" in jail or prison.

Well, where's the facts in this post? It's a panicky hypothetical that's meant to play on the feelings and emotions of easily scared people. It pretends that this hypothetical case is exemplary of all cases where an inmate goes up for parole, which is evidently and obviously not true. That's why I roll my eyes at it. I always roll my eyes at propaganda.

Those criminals would lie to get out if they had to. They would have no hesitation at all. Once set free for a bit, they will do their crime again sooner or later.

Again: where is the evidence? Where are the facts? Where are the sources? Where does it say it works this way, and always works this way and always will work this way? There are no such sources. They're just imaginary ghost-scenarios in IagoZazu's mind.

While I admit that IagoZazu states it somewhat as an always-will-happen scenario, the point is that they do happen. You don't need sources to know that it happens--and it's a fact that it does (maybe not always, but there are and will be cases where it does happen). Which means: rehabilitation is not a be-all, end-all solution. And, again, I and others are not willing to risk the lives of the innocent to give second chances at life outside of prison to those who don't deserve them.

Of course it makes perfect sense to you, since you don't value facts and sources. Instead, you base your simplistic black-and-white worldview on personal assumptions that have nothing to do with any facts.

You're right--it's completely farfetched to say that there are criminals who lie their way out of prison. Never happens. Never will, never has.

I have explained above why I rolled my eyes at it, but you haven't explained why you have swept away any of the arguments in favor for rehabilitation, other than saying: "this is just how I feel".

Really? I'm sure I have, only you're too closed to debate to hear them. My argument is that, regardless of whether rehabilitation works sometimes, there is no guarantee that it works all the time. And, again, I'm not willing to risk the lives of the innocent to give second chances to those who don't deserve them. If you think the money involved to keep them locked up is the only reason to let them out, then you're basically saying the same thing you disagreed with when some people who supported the death penalty earlier in this thread said that using the death penalty saves money for those who shouldn't be let out of prison (wow, run-on sentence): you're using money as the sole motivating factor of your argument, and to risk the lives of the innocent solely on monetary values is in my eyes not very sane at all. At the very least, unethical (and you seem to agree that ethics are important, since you believe on of the reasons the death penalty is wrong is because you think it's unethical, as said earlier).

"You define what's rational in life it seems." That's exactly the same backward caricature you have painted of me before. This is something you use to relieve yourself of bringing in rational arguments. You crawl into the role of the 'victim' that is 'bullied' by someone who 'dictates' what is rational and what's not. This makes it impossible for me to have any discussion. For, as soon as your phony arguments get called out, you act like a victim. Never for even a moment you will consider the validity of your arguments. No, you directly point to that mean Goliath!

You're right, I'm the one playing the victim here. To me, you're the one who's ignoring everything I say, and writing it off as "emotional," "irrational, "personal hatred." Because it's easier than taking it seriously.

I've already answered to that point at the top of this message. You seem to have a very naive, blind faith in the goodness of the criminal justice system.

And again I say: you apparently haven't been reading my posts.

But it is a very flawed system, which is not surprising, since it's a human system. But you put your blind faith in the police, the prosecuters, the DA and the judges. And history teaches us that this trust is not justified.

And you put blind faith in the hope that criminals will change and that they will never harm another person in their lives ever again. As I said, even if I took death penalty out of the equation, anything other than life imprisonment doesn't make any rational sense to me.

In fact, there is a cause and effect relationship, which I explained *right after* the part you were responding to. So you cut me off before I could get to my argumentation.

What--that the death penalty doesn't scare off criminals (the high crime rate is evidence) and that it only causes them to commit harsher, more brutal crimes because the idea of death makes them reckless? That is not a fact. You are drawing your own conclusions (or, as you would say, "assumptions") based on the fact there is a higher crime rate in the countries that allow the death penalty. Completely ignoring any extraneous factors, because that would hurt your statement's credibility, right?

First, the death penalty isn't about scaring off criminals, it's about getting rid of criminals who can no longer offer anything to society (mostly because life imprisonment is the only other option for them because, again, most "sane people" aren't willing to risk the lives of the innocent to give second chances to those who don't deserve them--life imprisonment would, of course, be suitable in cases where the evidence is not 100% and without a doubt but pretty damning, just in case any evidence shows up to the contrary).

As for the "it causes them to commit more heinous crimes" bit (no, that is not word-for-word what you said--I used those marks to put emphasis on the words that indicate your argument; had to say that just in case you say I'm misrepresenting you again), that is an assumption based on the crime rates. Where are your sources--where are your facts for this? It's a statement you made up based on the fact (the only one in that part of your post) that countries with the death penalty have higher rates of crime. And, as I said before, one is not necessarily indicative of the other--there is no undeniable cause and effect relationship between either of those relationships (that having the death penalty causes higher rates of crime, or that having the death penalty causes more brutal crimes because the rates show crime is high). It's a total Post Hoc fallacy.

The death panelty exists in many more states outside Texas, including Alabama, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri and Indiana. But where did you get the warped idea that "most criminals" get out early for good behavior? Is that another of your gut feelings? No, the world I want doesn't have the death penalty and only life in prison for people who remain a danger for society. Oh, and the prisons have to be humane.

Yes, the death penalty exists outside Texas--I never said that it didn't (though strangely, you assumed I did). I know that the death penalty exists outside of Texas; but all the other states usually meet what Texas puts up (for instance, in 2009, Texas executed 24 people; 27 people were executed in all the other states combined--meaning that, outside of Texas, the death penalty is pretty rare).

You cut me off again for some misplaced sarcasm.

Oh, sorry. See my response to the second quote above this, then.

This has bee proven by several investigations and are backed up by statistics, but obviously you can't respond to it seriously because that would mean that you would have to overcome your emotional vengeful feelings to actually discuss facts.

It has not been "proven," and I do not have to "overcome" the emotional vengeful feelings I don't have to say so. See my response to the third quote above this one.

I already explained why that's twisted and untrue 'logic'. But you cut me off again. Oh no, not only did you cut me off, you cut out my entire argumentation!!! You don't want to accept logic so you twist it to fit your purpose, or you just delete it and pretend it never existed. Well, I'm going to repeat it. This is the part you deliberately left out because you couldn't handle it:

I promise not to ignore you this time. Promise.

"The fact that people have recently been set free after having sat in death row for 10 years or more, doesn't mean the courts did something right. They were wrong in the first place, for sending them to death row!"

There's nothing wrong with a court seeking the death penalty while trying an individual. But, as I said before, in the cases you "cited" (more like casually gave the details of) the person involved was proven innocent and the death penalty was not used.

That's the consequence of not accepting that death penalty can be given to innocent persons. Had the persons be executed sooner, before their innocence was proven, they would be dead while being innocent and we wouldn't have been able to bring them back.

But I wouldn't have wanted them to be executed sooner. I would want the multiple trials to proceed as they did--so that one trial wouldn't decide that someone would be put to death. Unfortunately, you decided to encompass everything I've said into a general statement that I want people to be killed fast and soon--as soon as possible. Which I didn't say.

All because people like you support the death penalty. It seems you want to support something, but you don't want to accept responsibility for the consequences when things go wrong. Such support is cheap and lazy.

I don't have to accept the responsibility for something I don't support. I don't believe in a one-shot court case (or two for that matter).

Like I said: nothing in this world is assured. Thinking *anything* in this world is sure, is irrational. (Okay, go ahead, and pretent this is not a fact and I'm bullying poor little you.)

Then how can you even be taken seriously? Your entire argument can only rely on the criminals never committing their crime again--which, of course, isn't possible (since "nothing in this world is assured")--because otherwise you're just ignoring the risks involved.

Yes, you are. You blindly believe in the infallacy and good nature of the criminal justice system. Blind belief is naieve.

No, I don't blindly believe in anything. See the sixth quote and reply from the top. Hell, see the next quote to see what I said that you were replying to. It shows that I've never blindly believed in the courts.

People lie and courts can be manipulated. Which is why I said it's important to be tried by different judges and juries multiple times.

Doesn't guarantee a thing. The persons I cited at the beginning of this message were tried by different judges. (Luckily, we don't have a jury system.)

Do you mind giving us more to go on than cases you could have made up in your head--you know, like news coverage or something?

That's because you don't care about them.

More because few of them are facts--the others are thinly-veiled opinions and assumptions.

Here comes the victim role again...

Yep, here it goes again.

No, you spinned them and then cut out my argumentation against the spinning, as if it never existed. That's the only way you can maintain your spinned position: just don't adress the real arguments.

I addressed everything you've said in this past post just to make sure you don't use this excuse again.

I don't have to do anything to make you look bad.

The demonizing continues...

I didn't demonize you. You made yourself look bad.

And, you're right, I made this gigantic post (or two) revolving around the death penalty and life imprisonment because of you. Everything I've said is all about you. Of course. Now you can easily dismiss anything and everything I said as "irrational." Because life itself revolves around you.

And, as Margos has pointed out as something you do, again you take something out of context and then use misplaced sarcasm to deform what I actually said into something that I didn't say at all, but which fits your perception of me, or the way you want other people to see me, just so you don't have to answer to any argumentation (you just cut that out), but instead only have to play the victim and refer to this ugly caricature of me. It's a very transparent tactic.

You're right. I took it out of context. You weren't trying to dismiss the things I said as "personal hatred." Didn't happen. And, yes, that is a very transparent tactic you're referring to--you clearly can't be stopped from using it yourself.

Oh boy... I said what I said. Not what you feel or think I said.

I'm just saying that your words mean nothing if they don't follow through.

I'm sorry, I have debated almost every regular on this forum, and have never thought of them as any of those things you say. I may have said their *positions* were, or their *points of view*, or their *tastes* or *preferences*, but not the PERSONS. NOT the persons! That's not true. You just want to mix up those two very different things, so you don't have to adress any counter-argument I throw your way. Again: you want to only have to refer to this caricature of me. You can't have your opinions challenged. Anybody who challanges your opinions, is apparantly attacking you personally. That's how you see this forum and the users. You are the only one who I have debated who holds a grudge over it; over challenging your opinion. And I think THAT'S childish. NOT you as a person, but how you handle disagreeing persons.

You're right. The only personal part of my post is at the very bottom, but I haven't addressed anything without being "emotional." To me, you're the one who's playing the victim so you don't have to listen. Challenging my opinions is not a "personal attack." Using childish and degrading statements is.

Edit: fixed a few writing errors.

[Disney's Divinity]

Seriously though (I was curious though- do you have an opinion on people dying for entertainment value even if they were nice people and/or good characters?), I think you may have misworded what you said. But I get your point and you're kind of right.

I suppose that comment did come off a little weird looking back now. The people dying in horror films thing--I never mind other people enjoying it as long as I know they're seeing the characters as only characters in a movie. Then, it can be fun. As for me, though, I usually avoid horror movies with glorified and gratuitous murder (like Saw, Hostel, or Final Destination, which are mostly just bad anyway). I think I have a tendency of empathizing too much when watching films: I end up crying at characters dying even when I don't think the film wants me to. I don't enjoy watching innocent people die, even if they're unlikable.

Disney's Divinity... I read everything you said in that post, and I want you to know I think that was brilliant, intelligent, and thoroughly insightful. The whole thing. I might not agree with all of it and your idea of what should be done with the Death Penalty to correct it might not be feasible, but I still think that was one amazing post!!

I do wonder if it's feasible, too, at times. I mean, I know the system is corrupt, I just always thought that by appealing to a higher court multiple times, most if not all that bias would be overcome. Not a perfect solution, I guess, but as close to perfect as I can think of.

This is one instance since your disagreement with Goliath I really want to intervene:

...

Sorry, but I just didn't see any place there where you made an exception for people who didn't kill, rape, molest (even though that's what you were probably thinking).

Yes, that’s what I was thinking. When I’m writing these huge posts, my thoughts get scrambled and some things come out sounding different than I mean them. I don’t think that everyone who commits a crime is a “dreg” of our society. Just the murderers, rapists, etc. Though it seems you figured out I meant that. Still, I apologize to anyone who thought I was trying to demonize anyone and everyone who's in, or who has ever been in, prison.

I'm not sure I believe they do (either). But if they truly don't, how do you explain the shocking coincidence that they seem to?

I don't know all the countries that have the death penalty and all the ones that do. That would take an impossible amount of time to research. I'm thinking the economy, population size, and culture have a huge amount to do with it--although I wouldn't say those are perfect solutions either. The only reason I'm adamant about this is that I had to write a research paper about what I thought the reason was for the high crime rate in the US in high school (which our teacher did deliberately to torture the hell out of us, but, as I'm sure he knew, it was a learning experience). It's impossible to pin down any one thing for sure.

I just don't see people committing more brutal crimes just because there is a possible death penalty. First, you have to commit a crime (murder, usually--the others are rarer) to be worried about being put on trial for the death penalty. And then there are so many exceptions that can be manipulated, they could easily get out by saying they were clinically insane or something other than that. Besides, disregarding the death penalty, they would still risk imprisonment by being caught for assaulting someone, which would possibly motivate them to kill and hide the person anyway (so they can't tell or be found). With or without the death penalty in play, being caught could still lead to brutal crimes. I don't understand how the death penalty can be said to be the deciding factor between bad and worse.

Are you sure they weren't harmed? Maybe they didn't die. But, they still went to prison while they were on trial - didn't they?

I agree that that's pretty bad. And it's extremely hard to find a way around jailing someone if all signs say they're guilty (at the moment). I mean, I think it's horrible and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but I don't know that there's anyway around that for any case (even those not related to the death penalty). Maybe they should restrict individuals on trial to a separate, less restrictive area than those who are found guilty? Or maybe they already do that. I have no idea.

You mean- whether the person on trial committed the crime or not. Haven't you heard the term, "innocent until proven guilty"?

Sorry, bad word choice again.

[Goliath]

Disney's Divinity, I *have* left out things. These include: things that would have resulted in a yes-no/right-wrong argument where we would only repeat what we already said; and remarks about me and you personally and how we debate.

Not to be simplistic, but I'm not going to try and defend the obviously screwed up system in the Netherlands which resulted in the innocent being imprisoned.

And you believe this doesn't happen in the US? I just cited two examples that I know very well. I gave you examples of cases were people were convicted while they were innocent, despite the use of DNA material. So why don't you just admot that DNA evidence doesn't guarantee anything? Instead of making excuses.

In both cases, you refer to outside factors that have affected the court (police lying and one judge saying something is irrelevant when it obviously is).

The point is, they're not "outside factors". They are factors that are at work in the criminal justice system that contribute to people being convicted when they're really innocent.

Personally, I don't understand how police can "leave out" evidence without being charged with a crime themselves.

Because they didn't get caught with it. You seem to have a blind belief in the police and other authority figures. I guess Lazario is right that you are conditioned to think this way. But you ought to be more critical.

Regardless, I blame the individuals involved in those situations, not the system or the process itself (which is outside of the US, which is really all I'm focused on anyway).

Which individuals? The persons who were convicted but were innocent? or the corrupt police/prosecutors? They are *part* of the system, and I don't understand why you refuse to see that. And no, there's no such thing as American exceptionalism that means this doesn't ever happen in the US.

What was the evidence against them? Because anything other than DNA evidence and time placement (that sounds weird, I mean "they could be placed at the scene and time of the crime") would seem faulty justification for seeking the death penalty. Which would no doubt be clear if more than one judge was allowed to view the case.

More than one judge have viewed this case. The two who were innocent where convicted because they were seen near the crime scene at the time of the victim's death. Two persons who were with the two convicted men, were at first also suspects and they lied that they had seen the two other men rape and murder the girl.

But this is the fault of the police keeping evidence secret, and not the court or the system itself. Which is why they should certainly have been severely reprimanded (dismissed, charged, jailed, etc.).

The police are part of the criminal justice system. You act like real life is a movie where the corrupt police and prosecutors are an extreme exception and they always get outed and punished. That's not how it works in the real world.

No, I don't think the justice system in the US is "clean and honest and free of any corruption." I know that very well. Which was the whole point of the "I'm not naive" part of my last post (which you wrote off, because you apparently couldn't believe anything other than what you want to). I know the system is corrupt--it always will be. That was why I said it's important for a case to be judged by multiple judges (especially by appealing to the Supreme Court, which I think helps more than anything to get out of the biased environment of the state in question).

Well, if I thought you were being naive, is because that's what I was lead to believe by you from the content of your posts. But I'm glad to read you agree with me that the justice system isn't perfect and isn't free from corruption. The question is then: if you know this, why do you still support the death penalty? People can be send to death row because the police and/or the DA wanted to pin the crime on them, while they actually didn't do it. The fact that you seem to believe that multiple reviews of a certain case will set all innocents free (and thereby implying *no* innocent people are in jail) still make it seem like you have a blind belief in the system.

But the ruling of one judge being the ultimate say on someone getting the death penalty is extremely rare (why would any criminal not appeal?). That is the exception, not the rule. As for the police covering up evidence to make someone appear guilty--that is the fault of the individuals in question, and not the court.

We've already been over this --see my reaction above.

I didn't misrepresent what you were saying, because you implied that films were completely irrelevant to this discussion (when I was only asking how anyone who didn't support the death of the guilty could still manage to enjoy Disney films when it happens in so many of them?). If film/etc. is completely irrelevant to reality, according to you, then, to me, that's the same as saying there is no point to reading/watching it. Because if it isn't somehow connected to reality, it's a waste of time.

How does one lead to the other? You draw some very weird, far-fetched conclusions from what I said. I said policy shouldn't be based on fiction. How does that (and that alone) lead you to conclude that I think fiction has no place in reality and that we all should stop reading/watching it? That conclusion is so far from what I actually said that I can't grasp how you made the connection. Like Lazario said: if we see a horror film and are glad a character is killed, while it was a 'good' character, should we then execute 'good' people, because we liked it in the film? That's why the connection between opposing the death penalty and liking Disney films is wholy irrelevant to the discussion.

And yet the death penalty and the no-vote thing (which, you're right, is probably exclusive to the US for the most part, but it's a big one here at least) still exist in the US. There's a disconnect somewhere there.

Well, there's often a disconnect between theory and reality. A lot of countries which have signed the UN treaties that guarantee human rights for all people, still are prosecuting people based on their beliefs, sexual orientation and religion. That there's a disconnect doesn't mean we did agree on the fact that human rights are unalienable.

If you have a link to these treaties (or news coverage on them), I'll read them and see if they say somewhere in there that murderers can't have their rights taken away.

Do you really think there's a paragraphs in there that explicitly states: "murderers can't have their rights taken away"? That's the cartoonish type of reasoning Lazario talked about. They say human rights are universal to *all* people. Google UN and human rights, and you will come a long way.

I said that the costs to keeping them jailed don't outweigh the human life at risk if they're not. Because rehabilitation is not a 100% guarantee and, again, I'm not willing to risk the lives of the innocent to give second chances to those who don't deserve them.

We'll agree to disagree. You have a valid point.

I didn't throw that away. In my point of view, the fact that some criminals get better/become productive and some criminals do not commit the crime again is moot. Because there's still a chance with any criminal (as has happened before) that they will commit the crime again.

I think people who have changed their ways don't deserve to be punished because other people are incapable of changing.

And, again, I'm not willing to risk the lives of the innocent to give second chances to those who don't deserve them.

Why do people who have reformed and changed their lives not deserve a second chance?

Sorry, but the UN is a mess (I know that's irrelevant, but just had to say it).

It's indeed irrelevant. Aren't the values on which the UN was founded good values?

While I admit that IagoZazu states it somewhat as an always-will-happen scenario, the point is that they do happen. You don't need sources to know that it happens--and it's a fact that it does (maybe not always, but there are and will be cases where it does happen). Which means: rehabilitation is not a be-all, end-all solution.

IZ stated it cartoonish. (Thanks for the perfect description, Lazario.) That's mainly why I rolled my eyes at it. I'm the first to admit what IZ talked about *does* happen, and that rehabilitation is not always an option. But what IZ talked about isn't guaranteed to happen en rehabilitation *can* have positive effects. I don't want to throw that away.

You're right--it's completely farfetched to say that there are criminals who lie their way out of prison. Never happens. Never will, never has.

You're misrepresenting what I said, because I did not say such a thing.

If you think the money involved to keep them locked up is the only reason to let them out, then you're basically saying the same thing you disagreed with when some people who supported the death penalty earlier in this thread said that using the death penalty saves money for those who shouldn't be let out of prison (wow, run-on sentence): you're using money as the sole motivating factor of your argument, and to risk the lives of the innocent solely on monetary values is in my eyes not very sane at all. At the very least, unethical (and you seem to agree that ethics are important, since you believe on of the reasons the death penalty is wrong is because you think it's unethical, as said earlier).

I didn't say money was the only reason. I also didn't want to imply that I value the costs of holding inmates in prison over lives of innocent people. I just think it's better for society if somebody is contributing to it, rather than sitting in a jail doing nothing.

What--that the death penalty doesn't scare off criminals (the high crime rate is evidence) and that it only causes them to commit harsher, more brutal crimes because the idea of death makes them reckless? That is not a fact. You are drawing your own conclusions (or, as you would say, "assumptions") based on the fact there is a higher crime rate in the countries that allow the death penalty. Completely ignoring any extraneous factors, because that would hurt your statement's credibility, right?

Which other extranous factors, pray tell? I give you some facts and I give you the conclusion I draw from those facts. Fact is that crime rates are much harder in countries which have the deah penalty or other severe punishments, than in countries which don't have death penalty and lighter sentences. That should be some facts that make you think over your support for harsh punishment again.

First, the death penalty isn't about scaring off criminals, it's about getting rid of criminals who can no longer offer anything to society.

But if that same death penalty also causes criminals to do more reckless things because they feel it doesn't matter anymore (they have death hanging over their heads), is that worth it?

As for the "it causes them to commit more heinous crimes" bit, that is an assumption based on the crime rates. Where are your sources--where are your facts for this? It's a statement you made up based on the fact (the only one in that part of your post) that countries with the death penalty have higher rates of crime.

It's an explanation that I have read from experts to explain this difference in crime rates.

And, as I said before, one is not necessarily indicative of the other--there is no undeniable cause and effect relationship between either of those relationships (that having the death penalty causes higher rates of crime, or that having the death penalty causes more brutal crimes because the rates show crime is high). It's a total Post Hoc fallacy.

It's just a coincedence because it doesn't fit your argument? Murder rates are also much higher in countries were guns are freely and legally available, like the US. Much higher than in most European countries, where most people don't own guns. I guess this also 'happens' to be a coincidence, too?

Yes, the death penalty exists outside Texas--I never said that it didn't (though strangely, you assumed I did). I know that the death penalty exists outside of Texas; but all the other states usually meet what Texas puts up (for instance, in 2009, Texas executed 24 people; 27 people were executed in all the other states combined--meaning that, outside of Texas, the death penalty is pretty rare).

It means that, outside of Texas, the death penalty is used to execute criminals. I don't know what your point is, exactly. What does it matter that Texas has the highest execution rates? The only way that it is relevant, is to point out that Texas also executes mentally unstable criminals --people who can't be held accountable for what they've done because they don't know any better. I know of a case where it happened under then-Governor Bush. He refused amnesty for a man who was mentally five years old.

There's nothing wrong with a court seeking the death penalty while trying an individual. But, as I said before, in the cases you "cited" (more like casually gave the details of) the person involved was proven innocent and the death penalty was not used.

In many cases in the US, people were released from death row. They were up for execution. The fact that those people had to be released from death row, means they should have never been there. Which means they could have been executed if peope didn't found out they were innocent. Which is the most powerful argument to be against the death penalty. And the fact that you twist this around to say the justice system works fine, signals to me that you don't want to take this seriously.

But I wouldn't have wanted them to be executed sooner. I would want the multiple trials to proceed as they did--so that one trial wouldn't decide that someone would be put to death. Unfortunately, you decided to encompass everything I've said into a general statement that I want people to be killed fast and soon--as soon as possible. Which I didn't say.

Like I said: not by far do all people who are convicted get multiple trials, and multiple trials don't guarantee that a convicted person is 100% guilty. That you still support the death penalty, despite all that, logically means that you are at least partially responsible for executing the innocent. If you want to rule out the possibility that innocents are beings put to death, you *have* to withdraw your support.

Then how can you even be taken seriously? Your entire argument can only rely on the criminals never committing their crime again--which, of course, isn't possible (since "nothing in this world is assured")--because otherwise you're just ignoring the risks involved.

Huh? Where did I ever say I think no criminals would ever commit a crime again? Where did I ever say I'm not acknowledging the risks involved when releasing a prisoner? I have acknowledged those risks. But I said I was willing to take them. Sometimes it happens that a prisoner who was on parole committed a crime again and innocent people lost their lives. But I'm not willing to throw away the entire system of parole and early release just because this happens sometimes.

Do you mind giving us more to go on than cases you could have made up in your head--you know, like news coverage or something?

I didn't make those cases up. Why would you assume that? That's not fair; we can't have a discussion like that. There are more cases; Google is your friend. Don't pretend you don't know this happens.

The case of the two men and the stewardess:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puttense_moordzaak

The case of the man and the little girl:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiedammer_parkmoord

[Mooky]

Aaaaargh! Stop the quoting-madness!!! I like reading this thread because you all make great points, but this excess quoting hurts my head. Not to mention it's a waste of space and it makes the thread virtually unreadable.