BF2S Forums for all of you anti- death penalty folks.

Probably. In terms of therapy costs.

presidentsheep wrote:

Probably. In terms of therapy costs.

So, we have found a "deterrence" then......Public executions.....There you go you wanted a deterrence ya got one.

Might as well charge for viewing, put it on pay per view, all proceeds going to the family of the victims.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-16 04:56:50)

Shocking wrote:

lowing wrote:

So, we have found a "deterrence" then......Public executions.....There you go you wanted a deterrence ya got one.

now thats barbaric

really? I thought deterrence was one of your big selling points against the death penalty. Is it not now?

Shocking wrote:

No, wasn't even arguing about deterence, read my posts?

oh so you are the only anti death penalty person NOT trying to sell it is not a deterrence as an argument. just my luck.

Anyway, point still stands, if a deterrence is a must, then we would have one in public executions

Who has said deterrence is a must?

Shocking wrote:

No I'm actually advocating the death penalty for people like serial killers.

I don't want it to be held up in public display for children or something, that's really fucked up.

my apologies, this thread moves pretty quick and it is getting increasing difficult to remember who has posted what.

Varegg wrote:

You asume many things lowing, you really should stop doing that ...

Kinda hard to not assume deterrence is one of the arguments against the death penalty, especially when it is posted as one of the arguments against the death penalty.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well I will say it yet again, by your logic why punish criminals at all? There is no further deterrence, we will avoid punishing innocent people, and there are no positives with punishing criminals because it isn't going to bring the dead back to life, and if we punish criminals that will drastically reduce their ability to change into a productive member of society!!

lol gotta respectfully disagree on your logic.

I think that your problem is more with the justice system.  You don't believe people have the right to appeal, by stating that allowing an appeal or a different punishment than you wish to occur is an utter and complete failure.

yer wrong, I think appeals are a must, in the process of checks and balances to ensure guilt.

Pug wrote:

I'm not sure what you meant...if you have jumped to the conclusion that Bert disagrees with the concept of punishing any criminals in any way, aren't you saying the justice system isn't designed for you?

Aka, you are saying Bert's argument is weak because of the possibility executing an innocent man...aka innocence is proven/refuted during the appellate process...and the risk of proving innocence is a waste of time?

Sure, I'm gonna guess what your response is but: the courtroom ultimately decides whether to sentence death or life imprisonment...and unlike Bert, I see death as less barbaric.  Both sentences are deterrents.

In reference to the fear of executing and innocent person, this is a major concern to his argument. If punishing an innocent man is a concern then we should not punish ANYONE until their guilt is 100% without a doubt. A reasonable doubt, according to his logic, should not be acceptable. What I am saying is, why stop at the death penalty? IF life in prison is crueler a punishment, then no one should be punished at all if their guilt is not 100% fact.

No. His argument is weak because of what I just said. If after, the absolutely necessary appellate process, you are still guilty, then all doubt should be removed and the person is guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". Carry out the sentence.

They are deterrence to the normal and sane. However, to the normal and sane, punishment is hardly what you think about to keep you from killing an innocent person.

lowing wrote:

In reference to the fear of executing and innocent person, this is a major concern to his argument. If punishing an innocent man is a concern then we should not punish ANYONE until their guilt is 100% without a doubt. A reasonable doubt, according to his logic, should not be acceptable. What I am saying is, why stop at the death penalty? IF life in prison is crueler a punishment, then no one should be punished at all if their guilt is not 100% fact.

No. His argument is weak because of what I just said. If after, the absolutely necessary appellate process, you are still guilty, then all doubt should be removed and the person is guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". Carry out the sentence.

They are deterrence to the normal and sane. However, to the normal and sane, punishment is hardly what you think about to keep you from killing an innocent person.

Ahh, what is lacking from his argument is that a guilty verdict and a failed appeal doesn't mean the dood is guilty.  I think we both have already come to the conclusion (if that's the case) it's time to execute/lock and throw away the key.

As far as the "100% guilty" issue, I think your argument is weak as it conflicts with some of the other statements you made.  Stick with what I wrote above.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well I will say it yet again, by your logic why punish criminals at all? There is no further deterrence, we will avoid punishing innocent people, and there are no positives with punishing criminals because it isn't going to bring the dead back to life, and if we punish criminals that will drastically reduce their ability to change into a productive member of society!!

lol gotta respectfully disagree on your logic.

I think that your problem is more with the justice system.  You don't believe people have the right to appeal, by stating that allowing an appeal or a different punishment than you wish to occur is an utter and complete failure.

yer wrong, I think appeals are a must, in the process of checks and balances to ensure guilt.

Your problem is that you think the goddamned system is perfect. That innocent people are never executed. That innocent people are not sitting on death row despite exculpatory evidence. That all prosecutors are fair and just with no ulterior motives. That science is infallible and never misinterpreted.

Get your head out of the sand. Please don't keep babbling about deterrence.

do you know the story of one Clarence Brandley, who was within 6 days of being executed. The state and justice turned a blind eye to the exculpatory evidence. They just didn't care. Some heroic efforts by anti-death penalty people saved his life. The prosecution kept trying to kill him despite the mountain of reasonable doubt. The appeals process is a joke. The fucking prosecutor who turned a blind eye to any other suspects is now a fucking judge. I guess his conviction rate was good! Too bad it includes almost killing an innocent man.

or the sad story of Timothy Evans executed for killing his daughter when it was actually the serial killer neighbour who happened to testify against him! (yes I know it is the UK)

Stubbee wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

I think that your problem is more with the justice system.  You don't believe people have the right to appeal, by stating that allowing an appeal or a different punishment than you wish to occur is an utter and complete failure.

yer wrong, I think appeals are a must, in the process of checks and balances to ensure guilt.

Your problem is that you think the goddamned system is perfect. That innocent people are never executed. That innocent people are not sitting on death row despite exculpatory evidence. That all prosecutors are fair and just with no ulterior motives. That science is infallible and never misinterpreted.

Get your head out of the sand. Please don't keep babbling about deterrence.

do you know the story of one Clarence Brandley, who was within 6 days of being executed. The state and justice turned a blind eye to the exculpatory evidence. They just didn't care. Some heroic efforts by anti-death penalty people saved his life. The prosecution kept trying to kill him despite the mountain of reasonable doubt. The appeals process is a joke. The fucking prosecutor who turned a blind eye to any other suspects is now a fucking judge. I guess his conviction rate was good! Too bad it includes almost killing an innocent man.




or the sad story of Timothy Evans executed for killing his daughter when it was actually the serial killer neighbour who happened to testify against him! (yes I know it is the UK)

Never made deterrence an argument, I am battling against that argument. I suppose you just haven't read what I posted?

Never ever said the system is perfect, and never said innocent people have not been executed. I did say however, that science is getting better and better and it is harder and harder for criminals to get away with murder. Of course this is where you hit me with the inevitable "what if" scenarios, and as I have said before, you can "what if" every argument into a corner. So that does not prove you right.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-16 13:29:08)