Another Oklahoma Fail

[JJ Husker]

Too summarize your positions;

A) It is wrong to kill people convicted of heinous crimes. Because? It costs too much, it is cruel, an innocent person may be executed.

B) No problem killing unborn babies who have not harmed anyone.

So you think killing an innocent baby (fetus, actually, and generally not "alive") is horrendous . . . but killing an innocent adult is an acceptable risk.

Somehow that makes sense, I guess.

Let's just work with numbers here.

How many innocent adults have actually been killed by the death penalty? How many innocent babies have been killed by abortion?

It is not acceptable that an innocent person may be put to death but I don't think the fact that we will never be 100% accurate is enough to preclude it. If that is the case, then why even have a legal system at all? I mean we'll never get it 100% right so screw it, let people do what they want with no repercussions.

We probably shouldn't even begin to delve into your claim of a fetus being actually and generally not alive. I think that has been covered ad nauseum in other threads and you should've known better than to bring it up here.

 

[JJ Husker]

And I'm sorry. I will not bring abortion up in this discussion anymore. IMO, it is tough to avoid when we go down certain avenues of discussion but it sure won't help advance understanding on the death penalty issue.

 

[Junior]

Maybe a pro-death penalty person can help explain this to me, because I still don't get it.

Killing someone is a horrible crime. It is, I agree. But our answer to someone killing a person should be to kill a person? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Junior]

If you think that part of the reason for the death penalty is because of overcrowding then other ways of reducing overcrowding has everything to do with this.

Part of the benefit of the death penalty is reducing inmates, not part of the reason for it.

We killed a whole 39 people in 2013. Hardly helping the overcrowding issue.

We should be executing a good deal more. If we were, that number would go up and it wouldn't be quite so insignificant.

There are about 2.3 million prisoners in America. There are about 3000 on death row. If we killed all the inmates on death row tomorrow, we'd still have a massive prison overpopulation issue.

 

[carlfense]

How many innocent babies have been killed by abortion?

Depends on how we define "baby." From a medical standpoint zero babies are aborted. If a newborn is killed it isn't abortion, it's homicide.

We probably shouldn't even begin to delve into your claim of a fetus being actually and generally not alive. I think that has been covered ad nauseum in other threads and you should've known better than to bring it up here.

I'm not surprised that you'd prefer that I hadn't brought it up because it's rather crucial to your entire argument.

 

[EbylHusker]

Why do you think that is a significant difference? If the benefits aren't a reason for it . . . why bring them into the discussion?

My support for the death penalty is based on a reason (or reasoning, if you like). I've already posted it - once you've committed certain acts of such a heinous nature, you're no longer fit to ever rejoin society and could never be trusted again. You had your chance and blew it. There's no reason for us to keep you alive. That is the reason.

A benefit is just an added bonus, which is reducing prison population. In this case, reducing prison population that is very expensive through innumerable and unending appeals.

Take away the benefit and the reason is still there. Take away the reason and nothing remains.

 

[EbylHusker]

Maybe a pro-death penalty person can help explain this to me, because I still don't get it.

Killing someone is a horrible crime. It is, I agree. But our answer to someone killing a person should be to kill a person? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Killing someone is not always a horrible crime.

 

[knapplc]

Maybe a pro-death penalty person can help explain this to me, because I still don't get it.

Killing someone is a horrible crime. It is, I agree. But our answer to someone killing a person should be to kill a person? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not "pro-death penalty," but as I said before, the point of the penalty is to be a deterrent.

It makes no more or less sense than depriving that person of their liberty & pursuit of happiness the rest of their lives. And while I suppose there are statistics out there to show the answer, I don't honestly know whether death-penalty states have a lower or higher rate of capital crimes than non-death-penalty states. So whether that particular deterrent has the desired effect is beyond me.

I do agree that it's a terribly difficult moral issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIQAOSkm05w

 

[Junior]

Maybe a pro-death penalty person can help explain this to me, because I still don't get it.

Killing someone is a horrible crime. It is, I agree. But our answer to someone killing a person should be to kill a person? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Killing someone is not always a horrible crime.

Sure, if you kill in self defense it isn't a horrible crime. So are we killing incarcerated inmates in self defense?

 

[EbylHusker]

I have no moral issues with society instating laws that say, "If you do some really bad sh#t, we're going to kill you intead of keep you alive. You simply can't be redeemed or ever trusted again, so...goodbye." That is not a moral issue for me, but a justified execution. I don't expect everyone to agree, but don't be surprised when I sleep well at night.

Edit - And yes, I do believe we, as a society, have the right to make that decision. We have the right to instate laws that allow us to take other people's lives when we deem it necessary (or warranted). It doesn't necessarily have to be self-defense.

 

[Junior]

I have no moral issues with society instating laws that say, "If you do some really bad sh#t, we're going to kill you intead of keep you alive. You simply can't be redeemed or ever trusted again, so...goodbye." That is not a moral issue for me, but a justified execution. I don't expect everyone to agree, but don't be surprised when I sleep well at night.

Edit - And yes, I do believe we, as a society, have the right to make that decision. We have the right to instate laws that allow us to take other people's lives when we deem it necessary (or warranted). It doesn't necessarily have to be self-defense.

The bolded is a bit chilling and could be widely interpreted.

 

[carlfense]

The bolded is a bit chilling and could be widely interpreted.

A lot of this is a bit chilling. Don't trust the government . . . unless the government is killing people.

 

[EbylHusker]

I've never claimed to be a good or decent person. In fact, I'm most certainly not. In this case, however, it is meant to speak only about the death penalty issue.

 

[tschu]

We should be executing a good deal more. If we were, that number would go up and it wouldn't be quite so insignificant.

There are about 2.3 million prisoners in America. There are about 3000 on death row. If we killed all the inmates on death row tomorrow, we'd still have a massive prison overpopulation issue.

This. Legalizing marijuana alone would do hundreds of times more for the overcrowding issue than killing more people would. Moral arguments aside.

 

[EbylHusker]

We should be executing a good deal more. If we were, that number would go up and it wouldn't be quite so insignificant.

There are about 2.3 million prisoners in America. There are about 3000 on death row. If we killed all the inmates on death row tomorrow, we'd still have a massive prison overpopulation issue.

This. Legalizing marijuana alone would do hundreds of times more for the overcrowding issue than killing more people would. Moral arguments aside.

And as I've already said, they're not mutually exclusive. And we should be putting many more people on death row and executing them than we already do.