patrick.net

Rin says

Dan, it's obvious you don't know the Boston PD every well. If the Feds weren't actively involved in keeping a lease on the local PDs, both brothers would not have survived that day. Realize, they were dubbed 'cop killers', during the overnight chase between the municipalities of Cambridge and Watertown. Many police officers would have emptied every clip into the brothers.

True. I stand corrected on that. Police will choose to kill a cop killer rather than bring him to court. They don't want a jury that might let him go make the decision of his guilt.

Strategist says

Why should we be fair to people who want to kill us?

Because we're the good guys, or at least want to be.

Rin says

I think the Feds realized that at some point in time, that he was just an idiot and thus, handed him over to Federal prosecutors.

Probably early on. Even their uncle called them losers.

https://www.a6_LQEPZgy8

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Why should we be fair to people who want to kill us?

Because we're the good guys, or at least want to be.

That's the trouble with us. We are being good to the wrong people.
Take the example of Saddam Hussein when he was in power. He kept the religious extremists at bay by abusing their human rights, shooting them on sight, throwing them prison without trial, and basically being as bad as them. When we started enforcing the "nice guy" and fair rules in Iraq, violence went through the roof. They started killing each other.
Our way does not work. It makes things worse. The cold blooded way of no questions asked dictatorship is what works.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

I don't see

Dan8267 says

I cannot think

But you sure can spew some bullshit...

Is it psychologically impossible for a pathological liar like you to quote someone accurately?

Those are your accurate quotes from your post.... Duh....

Really? Let's examine that, you psychopath.

Misquote 1: "I don't see"
Actual quote: "I don't see the advantages of executing him.

Misquote 2: "I cannot think"
Actual quote: "I cannot think of a rational reason to base sentencing on the desire for revenge."

In both cases, the misquoted statement means something completely different and irrelevant to the actual statement made by me. Simply copying individual words out of text, but not copying the entire sentence is not a form of accurately quoting someone. You are demonstrating pathological lying and trying to deceive an audience you think is as dumb as the Fox News audience. However, no one is fooling for your childish and crude tricks, and every time you double down on stupidity, you make yourself and other conservatives look like idiots.

What makes you a pathological liar is that your lies are so transparent, yet you still think you can get away with them. Perhaps years of listing to transparent lies from conservative media has caused you to think that everyone is as stupid as those who listen to conservative propaganda. In any case, you and those like you are quite pathetic.

There you go again, doubling down on stupidity when you're caught deliberately misquoting a person.

Put him in general population, let the inmates finish him off. Best of both worlds. Worked beautifully with Dahmer.

lakermania says

Put him in general population, let the inmates finish him off. Best of both worlds. Worked beautifully with Dahmer.

I believe that this is the reason why Mark Chapman is still alive today. He's separated from the general prison population, living in you might say is a private study hall.

There were many Beatles fans, who would have off'ed this guy, if they had a chance. I suspect that within 2 years of the prison general population, he'd be a dead man.

lakermania says

Put him in general population, let the inmates finish him off. Best of both worlds. Worked beautifully with Dahmer.

Morally equivalent to executing using torture, but with additional cowardice of not being the one doing the dirty dead.

Again, I ask what is the rational justification for murdering someone who is imprisoned for life in a maximum security prison and cannot harm anyone else again? To murder to prevent someone from murdering or harming another may be justified, but when that person is not a threat and cannot be anymore, what is the rational justification for taking a human life?

If the justification is revenge, how is revenge rational in this situation? Setting aside the moral issue, what is the practical advantage of revenge against someone serving a life sentence without possibility of parole? How does society benefit? How do the victims or their families benefit?

lakermania says

let the inmates finish him off

If he were put into a Massachusetts prison, like Walpole or Lancaster, he'd be done very fast in the general population.

Dan8267 says

Morally equivalent to executing using torture, but with additional cowardice of not being the one doing the dirty dead.

Again, I ask what is the rational justification for murdering someone who is imprisoned for life in a maximum security prison and cannot harm anyone else again? To murder to prevent someone from murdering or harming another may be justified, but when that person is not a threat and cannot be anymore, what is the rational justification for taking a human life?

If the justification is revenge, how is revenge rational in this situation? Setting aside the moral issue, what is the practical advantage of revenge against someone serving a life sentence without possibility of parole? How does society benefit? How do the victims or their families benefit?

The justification is to set an example to other potential murderers.

sbh says

Strategist says

Why should we be fair to people who want to kill us?

Because fairness is more important than your personal fear. That's the thing about form, principle and concept: they transcend the personal. Black people fear that white cops want to kill them. Do you think they should simply kill white cops? Torture white cops? All they need is to have fear, and they have met your burden of justification. I'm not going to respond to anything you might say further because on this matter you are as insane as bgamall. So go ahead and repeat yourself, starting with "I don't care about principle...."

You guys are so sensitive. Get over it.

Dan8267 says

additional cowardice of not being the one doing the dirty dead

Dan, have you not lived through the cold war? Many of the US's actions were done through proxy. According to the rules of our society, prim and proper ppl don't use excessive force or subterfuge.

Dan8267 says

what is the practical advantage of revenge against someone serving a life sentence without possibility of parole? How does society benefit? How do the victims or their families benefit?

Family members know that this person is off the earth, literally, instead of imagining him running a terrorist recruiting ring out of prison, like a lot of mafioso types do, at present, for drugs and money launderings.

And then, what stops him of getting a chance at parole like Chapman? Right now, it's Yoko Ono, who'd been protesting Chapman's parole for the past three decades. If she wasn't so adamant, chances are, Chapman would be on the streets. Instead, it's his relative solitary confinement, which is saving him from angry Beatles fans in the general prison population.

Concerning Mark Chapman, considering that the man is a total and complete loser in society, isn't his current lifestyle, a reward for his mediocrity?

Let's face it, he's living the life of a full time student but in a more cloistered environment with reading and writing materials. If he had any brains or creativity, he could be writing short stories and novels, fashioning himself as the Stephen King of the *Max Slam*, not too distinct from the Birdman of Alcatraz.

And all he had to do, to obtain this lifestyle was to murder a rock icon. How is that justice for the Lennon family or any of his fans?

Strategist says

You guys are so sensitive. Get over it.

If it worked, I'd go for it.

Fact is, we tried blood-feuds (privatized justice) and hangings of pickpockets for centuries.

It didn't work: at public hangings of pickpockets - the crowds were infested with pickpockets.

HydroCabron says

If it worked, I'd go for it.

Except that in this case, the pickpocketers' prison would be fertile training ground for a next generation of pickpocketers, who're originally in jail for general larceny.

So until jail becomes a full solitary confinement experience w/ no reading nor writing materials, then it's basically a full time summer camp for criminals, with the occasional brawls and shower rapes.

Rin says

Except that in this case, the pickpocketers' prison would be fertile training ground

No doubt.

I still have a hard time believing that it would be any worse, since crime tends to vary with age, anyway: past 35, the rate of re-offense dwindles for everything but child molesters and sex murderers.

By the way: crime rates have been dropping consistently for 20 years, and it appears that the demise of leaded gasoline flipped the switch.

HydroCabron says

No doubt.

I still have a hard time believing that it would be any worse, since crime tends to vary with age, anyway: past 35, the rate of re-offense dwindles for everything but child molesters and sex murderers.

Here are the scenarios ...

1) A few generally patriotic types or die-hard Massachusetts native/resident inmates, take him out within his first year or two, out of a sense of justice or revenge.

2) The born-again Muslims in prison are inspired by his and his brother's story and want to prop him up as a folk hero, who stood up against the white imperialistic America.

3) In a Mark Chapman-like solitary experience, he fades to black and no one hears about him again.

4) In a Mark Chapman-like solitary experience, he writes the great American novel and becomes a literary hero to others who think like him or his brother.

Thus, 1 and 3 are the best outcomes, 2 & 4, however, made his incarceration, a worse outcome than the death penalty, which BTW, I don't support but not because I don't believe that it fits the crime.

Strategist says

The justification is to set an example to other potential murderers.

Really? Your sole motivation is deterrence, right? Then you'll change your position once I inform you that a plethora of evidence shows that the death penalty has no deterrence and this has been scientifically proven.

The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence
Capital Punishment: Deterrent Effects & Capital Costs
Panel fails to establish deterrent effect of death penalty
Does Capital Punishment Deter Murder?
No credible evidence on whether death penalty deters

Good summary from the Dartmouth paper above.

Those who defend the deterrent value of the death penalty offer little systematic research to support their view. Instead, they rely on an intuitive feeling that capital punishment should be uniquely effective. When the available evidence doesn't support that conclusion, they argue that the evidence is imperfect. It is. But if there were any substantial net deterrent effect from capital punishment under modern U.S. conditions, the studies we have surveyed should clearly reveal it. They do not.

The fact is that no one decides to not commit a crime because of fear of the death penalty. If a person isn't deterred by the fear of life imprisonment, he's not going to be deterred by the death penalty. This is common sense, but conservative nutjobs just can't get this fact through their brain, which says "Kill the interlopers! Kill them all!"

Of course, if Strategist's motivation was that he thought the death penalty was really a deterrent, he'd change his opinion on it now that it's clear it's not a deterrent. However, Strategist is not going to change his opinion, nor is anyone else in favor of the death penalty. This is because whether or not the death penalty was a deterrent is completely irrelevant to those in favor of it.

Those people are in favor of the death penalty because they like revenge. Revenge makes them feel good. Now I'm not saying that revenge was never useful. Clearly it was back in the Stone Age. Someone took your mate, so you killed him. You eliminated a sexual competitor and probably got your mate back and increased social status. But that was back in the Stone Age. This strategy simply does not work in the modern age where we have courts and 7 billion people on the planet. You cannot eliminate your competitors as there are simply too many of them. So there is no benefit to revenge in the modern age, but there is a far, far greater cost. Being pro-death-penalty is essentially thinking like a caveman in modern times. You're mode of thinking is obsolete and not useful or productive.

So once again, I ask the question. What is the rational benefit of killing someone who permanently imprisoned and cannot threaten anyone again?

The lack of answers to this question leads me to believe that the truth is there is none and the death penalty is all about bloodlust as the posts by the pro-death-penalty users in this thread suggest. But then the question becomes, "Should our legal system serve justice or vengeance?". It cannot serve both.

Dan8267 says

serve justice

How is Mark Chapman's current lifestyle of never having to work for a living, reading and writing whatever he wants, with 3 meals per day, punishment? I'd say that he was rewarded for killing Lennon.

Before, he had to get a job, find an apartment, and yes, make something of a life for himself. Today, he's a celebrity killer, who's been able to keep Yoko under constant stress, for the fear that someday he may be paroled. And of course, like all assholes looking for parole, he'd also found Jesus during his lonely nights in the study hall. BTW, he gets annual conjugal visits from his Hawaiian wife.

If anything, I feel the punished here are Lennon's family, not Chapman. In society, Chapman's a failure in life. In prison, he's infamous and a celebrity.

Rin says

Dan, have you not lived through the cold war? Many of the US's actions were done through proxy. According to the rules of our society, prim and proper ppl don't use excessive force or subterfuge.

Yes, many actions are done covertly and the truth is covered up. I would argue that this is a very bad thing in the long run regardless of what the truth is. Is something isn't justifiable in the out and open, it's not justifiable period.

Rin says

Family members know that this person is off the earth, literally, instead of imagining him running a terrorist recruiting ring out of prison, like a lot of mafioso types do, at present, for drugs and money launderings.

A person in prison cannot recruit terrorists as all his communications are heavily monitored. In fact, attempts to make contacts would be an intelligence boon. Furthermore, becoming a martyr is a far more effective recruitment tool for any cause, terrorism or not.

If family members feel satisfied that he dies, that is a bloodlust argument, so it does not answer my question.

Rin says

And then, what stops him of getting a chance at parole like Chapman?

That problem is not a justification for the death penalty, but rather for not letting those sentenced for life have commuted sentences unless they are shown to have been wrongly convicted.

HydroCabron says

Fact is, we tried blood-feuds (privatized justice) and hangings of pickpockets for centuries.

It didn't work: at public hangings of pickpockets - the crowds were infested with pickpockets.

Yep, empirical evidence also backs up that the death penalty isn't a deterrent.

Rin says

So until jail becomes a full solitary confinement experience w/ no reading nor writing materials, then it's basically a full time summer camp for criminals, with the occasional brawls and shower rapes.

Which again only works if the prisoners are eventually released. To argue the death penalty for minor crimes as a way of preventing criminal training is weak since giving life imprisonment for those same crimes would work just as well.

HydroCabron says

By the way: crime rates have been dropping consistently for 20 years, and it appears that the demise of leaded gasoline flipped the switch.

I think there are other significant factors that are at play such as anti-poverty programs, family planning, the rise of technologies and cameras, the aging of the Baby Boomers (who were all basically criminals).

In fact, if you count all crime, crime today is at an all-time high. Sure violent and youth crime is at an all-time low because Boomers can't commit those kinds of crimes anyway because they are old. But what about financial crimes? They are at a historic high. Few murders murder more than one person. They get caught in the first act and don't get another chance. In contrast, the average person in the financial industry commits hundreds of felonies per day just doing the normal operations of his job. That's a lifetime of criminal activity every day, five days a week, fifty weeks a year. If we actually counted all the financial crimes, we wouldn't say crime is at an all-time low. We'd say the aging Boomers moved from robbing people on the streets to robing them on Wall Street.

Rin says

2 & 4, however, made his incarceration, a worse outcome than the death penalty,

As for 2, being a martyr typically is far more inspiring, especially to a culture that glorifies martyrdom for their religion.

As for 4, anyone can write propaganda to support an unjust cause. The solution isn't to prevent the propaganda or kill those doing it. The solution is to counter the propaganda and the best way to do that is to get everything in the open. The most effective way to kill a lie is not to silence it but to confront it with the truth.

Rin says

How is Mark Chapman's current lifestyle of never having to work for a living, reading and writing whatever he wants, with 3 meals per day, punishment? I'd say that he was rewarded for killing Lennon.

I'd hardly say that life in prison is more pleasant than life outside it. But even if Chapman isn't suffering, how is justice served by making him suffer? Is the purpose of our legal system really to inflict suffering on others? I thought it was to protect people.

Imprisonment makes sense to the point where it is a deterrent and to the extent that it physically prevents a person from harming others. Some amount of suffering certainly acts as a deterrent for someone who is eventually going to be released. But for someone who's not going to be released, what's the point of making that person suffer? It may serve bloodlust, but it does not make us safer.

Dan8267 says

Rin says

How is Mark Chapman's current lifestyle of never having to work for a living, reading and writing whatever he wants, with 3 meals per day, punishment? I'd say that he was rewarded for killing Lennon.

I'd hardly say that life in prison is more pleasant than life outside it. But even if Chapman isn't suffering, how is justice served by making him suffer? Is the purpose of our legal system really to inflict suffering on others? I thought it was to protect people.

A prison is a correctional facility. Part of that correction is just punishment, not simply putting a wall between the criminal and the rest of society. A criminal needs to know that his actions are anti-society and unacceptable, not just time in the slam.

And when a person is separated from the general prison population of thugs and marauders, then yes, for certain ppl, who are of nefarious value to society, it's a good life. The Birdman of Alcatraz made a good life for himself in prison, prior to his final transfer to Alcatraz, where his work on birds was taken away from him. That final bit, was adequate punishment for his prior murders, as he was deprived of his intellectual pursuits.

Dan8267 says

To argue the death penalty for minor crimes as a way of preventing criminal

As you know, for me, the death penalty is for murder, not minor crimes, as it indicates to the criminal that he can't have free board/housing/food for life with a bit of solitary if his victims are famous, as in Chapman's case. Tsarnev may get a similar setup as Chapman, given what the average person thinks about him.

But then on the flip side, as I'd said, the problem with the death penalty, is that it has to apply equally to other first degree murder cases, where the evidence isn't so blatantly obvious, and sometimes even *planted* by the local PD, to assist with an easier DA's conviction. And thus, it's difficult to administer the death penalty, since it's the so-called perfect punishment for an imperfect system. Therefore, we can't have the death penalty. I don't argue for theoretical conditions, I look at the way things are.

Why should I as a taxpayer pay for his "live in prison". It'll be much cheaper to just give him the same kind of justice he gave us. Execute that asshole and be done with him.

FortWayne says

Why should I as a taxpayer pay for his "live in prison".

Because all 1st degree murder cases need the same treatment. His notoriety doesn't change that fact.

Rin says

FortWayne says

Why should I as a taxpayer pay for his "live in prison".

Because all 1st degree murder cases need the same treatment. His notoriety doesn't change that fact.

Than execute them all. It'll be much cheaper for taxpayers.

Rin says

A prison is a correctional facility. Part of that correction is just punishment, not simply putting a wall between the criminal and the rest of society. A criminal needs to know that his actions are anti-society and unacceptable, not just time in the slam.

Ah, an anti-recidivism argument. I like the idea of reforming criminals. Of course, such an argument would not support the death penalty over life in prison as in each case the person is not given a second chance, but that's not what you are arguing. Does inflicting suffering really reform people? Does corporal punishment work? Does humiliating and dehumanizing a person make him a better person out of fear of future torment? I don't know off the top of my head -- I haven't researched that -- but what I have read and heard suggests that these tactics actually backfire. Humiliating or dehumanizing a person or inflicting harm on him makes him more likely to become anti-social, anti-cooperative, and rebellious.

But anyway, although inflicting suffering might, and the keyword is might, reduce recidivism, it still does not make any rational sense to inflict suffering on someone who is serving a life sentence or getting the death penalty. Yet, most pro-death-penalty people want the condemn to suffer a painful death. It still sounds like just bloodlust to me.

As for lesser crimes, I think our prison system is designed to maximize recidivism because it's repeat business and increases the profits and wages of the prison industry. I think it would be far better for our society to replace prison with reform programs in any case where the criminal does not need to be physically separated from society for safety. It would cost far less in the long run, and we would be safer.

Rin says

The Birdman of Alcatraz made a good life for himself in prison, prior to his final transfer to Alcatraz, where his work on birds was taken away from him. That final bit, was adequate punishment for his prior murders, as he was deprived of his intellectual pursuits.

So, it is good to make this prisoner suffer? How so? What does society gain by his suffering?

Rin says

But then on the flip side, as I'd said, the problem with the death penalty, is that it has to apply equally to other first degree murder cases, where the evidence isn't so blatantly obvious, and sometimes even *planted* by the local PD, to assist with an easier DA's conviction.

True, one can make a good argument against the death penalty because it cannot be undone and we have undeniably murdered innocent people in the past. But I'm not interested in making the case against the death penalty right now. I'm interested in the harder question of what good is served by killing someone who is no longer a threat. It's a moral, an ethical, and a policy-making question.

It seems to me that the death penalty exists only to make people who like revenge feel temporarily good that the bad guy suffered. But that is not a moral, ethical, or legal justification for the death penalty. Some of the supporters try to find evidence to justify the death penalty, but I'm not in disingenuous reasons supported by weak evidence. I'm interested if there is a real, honest, rational reason for the death penalty. I've played devil's advocate on this and I cannot think of any.

To be in favor of the death penalty is to say that there is a justification for taking a human life that is not endangering anyone. I cannot find any rationale to support such a proposition, and so far, no one in this thread has addressed that issue. They've danced around the issue rather than addressing it.

FortWayne says

Than execute them all. It'll be much cheaper for taxpayers.

Executing people to save money is, by definition, murder. It would be cheaper for taxpayers if we executed all babies. No need to provide health care, parks, education, etc. for them. And murder is murder whether your victim is innocent or guilty of crimes.

Also, it would be far cheaper for taxpayers if we released all people in prison on drug offenses, stopped the war on drugs, and decriminalize all drug use and trade. But you aren't for that, are you? So I call your cost-cutting argument disingenuous. You are not motivated by saving the utterly insignificant amount of money spent on prisoners. You are clearly motivated by something else. The only thing that seems to match your motivation is bloodlust. So, how exactly are you better than the people you want to see executed?

Dan8267 says

A person in prison cannot recruit terrorists as all his communications are heavily monitored. In fact, attempts to make contacts would be an intelligence boon. Furthermore, becoming a martyr is a far more effective recruitment tool for any cause, terrorism or not.

"U.S. Prisons Churning Out Thousands Of Radicalized Inmates"
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/21/u-s-prisons-churning-out-thousands-of-radicalized-inmates/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/spearit/growing-faith-prisons-hip-hop-and-islam_b_2829013.html

But anyway, although inflicting suffering might, and the keyword is might, reduce recidivism, it still does not make any rational sense to inflict suffering on someone who is serving a life sentence

Dan8267 says

Rin says

The Birdman of Alcatraz made a good life for himself in prison, prior to his final transfer to Alcatraz, where his work on birds was taken away from him. That final bit, was adequate punishment for his prior murders, as he was deprived of his intellectual pursuits.

So, it is good to make this prisoner suffer? How so? What does society gain by his suffering?

Like a lot of intelligent ppl, the Birdman was able to compartmentalize his life, focusing on birds instead of dealing with his past. At Alcatraz, w/o that ability to stay inside his vaunted hobbies, he was finally able to experience some contrition for the life he'd chosen for himself.

Now, you might say that his work on birds was equivalent to my science and engineering welfare state but I'd prefer that the first few members not be hardened criminals.

The thing is that because the Birdman's 2nd murder was of a prison guard, his parole opportunities were always shot down. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a true life sentence. With adequate protest from supporters, even a confirmed murderer can get off on good behavior, provided he can show to the parole board that he'd made some changes.

BTW, you should watch Burt Lancaster's classic on the man. It's possibly one of his best movies.

Dan8267 says

To be in favor of the death penalty is to say that there is a justification for taking a human life that is not endangering anyone.

Are you certain that that person couldn't endanger anyone again? I believe that this was the point which Michael Dukakis had a hard time getting around during his White House run was that Willie Horton, a convicted murderer, who was on a weekend furlough, committed armed robbery/rape again. Dukakis had supported such a furlough program for MA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton

Dan8267 says

Executing people to save money is, by definition, murder. It would be cheaper for taxpayers if we executed all babies. No need to provide health care, parks, education, etc. for them. And murder is murder whether your victim is innocent or guilty of crimes.

No Dan, you and your liberal logic of fallacy again. Children are needed and wanted, they are the future. Criminals and murderers will never be useful unless we bring back prison labor, so execute them.

socal2 says

"U.S. Prisons Churning Out Thousands Of Radicalized Inmates"

That's a good argument again incarceration as prisons are largely college for criminals. It is not, however, an argument in favor of the death penalty. The best you could do to apply this argument to terrorism is that people sentenced to life in prison should be isolated from people not sentenced to life.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

The justification is to set an example to other potential murderers.

Really? Your sole motivation is deterrence, right? Then you'll change your position once I inform you that a plethora of evidence shows that the death penalty has no deterrence and this has been scientifically proven.

That's because the death penalty is rarely imposed. Start executing them and watch how quickly violent crimes drop. Murderers, child rapists, terrorists, should all be executed within 12 months of conviction.

Rin says

Like a lot of intelligent ppl, the Birdman was able to compartmentalize his life, focusing on birds instead of dealing with his past. At Alcatraz, w/o that ability to stay inside his vaunted hobbies, he was finally able to experience some contrition for the life he'd chosen for himself.

OK, but why does it matter whether or not Birdman contrites or reforms when he's never getting out of prison? What value does making the guilty who will be given no second chance remorse?

Rin says

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a true life sentence.

Ah, but the solution to that is to make life sentences actually be life sentences. I don't buy the justification of killing someone in order to prevent people in the future from shortening their sentences. If people are wrongly shortening sentences, then that is the behavior that should stop.

Rin says

Are you certain that that person couldn't endanger anyone again? I believe that this was the point which Michael Dukakis had a hard time getting around during his White House run was that Willie Horton, a convicted murderer, who was on a weekend furlough, committed armed robbery/rape again.

Again, this is an argument against shortening a life sentence, not an argument for killing a person in prison.

You might even extend this argument to requiring that life sentences be served in a maximum security prison so that the inmate cannot harm other inmates, but that doesn't extend the argument to justifying the death penalty.

P implies Q. A person is not a threat to others implies that person should not be killed. All of your arguments are attempting to invalidate the premise, but that doesn't address my question. My question is can you show that P does not imply Q, i.e. there is justification for killing a person who is not a threat to others. Accept P and show me a case where not Q is true.

Strategist says

That's because the death penalty is rarely imposed. Start executing them and watch how quickly violent crimes drop. Murderers, child rapists, terrorists, should all be executed within 12 months of conviction.

You are making an assumption that has been empirically disproved time and time again throughout history. There have been many societies that have been hard on crime. They are all places you would not like to live: Medieval Europe, modern Afghanistan, Communist China, etc.

But what about this? It is inevitable that mistakes will be made. If you serve on a jury and you convict an innocent person to death and he's killed before the mistake is proven, would you willingly submit yourself to the death penalty for your part in murdering an innocent person? And don't puss out by questioning the premise. Accept that and tell us if you would stick by your convictions when they call for your death.

Better idea: convert him to Judaism (learn Hebrew, study Talmud, etc) as a precondition of his release. Then let him go in Saudi Arabia. His own peeps will be obliged to murder him as an apostate, and his reputation for being an Islamic warrior will be totally negated in the shame of his becoming a hated Jew.

Dan8267 says

You are making an assumption that has been empirically disproved time and time again throughout history. There have been many societies that have been hard on crime. They are all places you would not like to live: Medieval Europe, modern Afghanistan, Communist China, etc.

Islamic countries that enforce the Sharia laws have little or no crime. That is all the proof you need to show capital punishment works.

Dan8267 says

But what about this? It is inevitable that mistakes will be made. If you serve on a jury and you convict an innocent person to death and he's killed before the mistake is proven, would you willingly submit yourself to the death penalty for your part in murdering an innocent person? And don't puss out by questioning the premise. Accept that and tell us if you would stick by your convictions when they call for your death.

It's not murder, or even manslaughter.

FortWayne says

No Dan, you and your liberal logic of fallacy again. Children are needed and wanted, they are the future. Criminals and murderers will never be useful unless we bring back prison labor, so execute them.

Actually, my pointing out the contradictions of your philosophy are valid even if you cannot admit them. As for your statement, it's premise is empirically false. Many convicted criminals have served their sentence and become productive members of society. Therefore, your premise that criminals will never be useful is historically false.

As for murderers, to murder someone is to intentionally kill them without their permission. The guy in America Sniper was a murderer. Are you saying he should be executed? Hell, executions of prisoners is, by definition, murder.

And for the pussies who want to cop out by saying murder is only the "illegal killing" or a person, by that definition, Hitler did not murder anyone. No person was murder in the Holocaust. After all, everything Hitler did was legal since he was the law.

We don't really base what is and is not murder on government policy. If we did, what constitute murder would vary greatly from society to society. And still, the guy in American Sniper would be a murderer because his actions were ILLEGAL in the country where he performed them.

So, FortWayne, you only have a problem with SOME murderers and you glorify others. Hence, you are being disingenuous with your statement that all murderers should be executed. What you meant to say was, "anyone who commits a murder that I don't approve of should be executed", and that has an entirely different meaning.

Strategist says

Islamic countries that enforce the Sharia laws have little or no crime. That is all the proof you need to show capital punishment works.

Actually their laws, just ones and unjust ones, are violated all the time. Otherwise no one would be getting executed. If mass capital punishment worked as a deterrent, there wouldn't be many people committing capital crimes, and thus the mass capital punishment would no happen and thus would not deter. See how it's self-defeating?