Capital Punishment, in principle

[JBeukema]

Huggy's been trolling for 30 fucking years?

 

[xotoxi]

Right now in the good old USA you've got treason which carries with it the distinct possiblity of the deaths of a goodly number of Americans and murder 1. Nothing else carries the death penalty at this time. Though I personally would gladly sign off on the excution of child rapists where the victim is under 12.

How did you decide on 12?

Before Puberty. Pretty simple concept.

So do they just go by the age, or do they actually take a look down below?

 

[elvis]

My theory does not deny a victim.. It ensures certainty of the evidense, witnesses and justice in carrying out the execution of the accused.

It's the ultimate "put up or shut up".

You are a FUCKING moron. But then we already KNEW that didn't we?

Thanks for your input.

He's right, you whiney little bitch. You have got to be the stupidest fuck on this entire board.

 

[JBeukema]

New Subscribed Threads: (13) Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views

Poll: Capital Punishment, in principle (

1 2)
JBeukema
Reply | Unsubscribe

Today 11:53 PM
by elvis3577 ​

22 0

22 replies, 0 views- this thread is fucking awesome!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

At thirteen you aren't a child you are a teen ager. Not quite an adult but no longer technically a child either.

That makes her victimization less of a crime?

Please elaborate in another thread

(can Gunny or someone xfer these last few posts to a new thread?)

Why? Don't like the fact someone told you a crime deserving the death penalty, ISN'T that exactly what you ASKED for?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How did you decide on 12?

Before Puberty. Pretty simple concept.

So do they just go by the age, or do they actually take a look down below?

Laws have to be specific, AGE is good enough for me. The Death Penalty needs to happen a lot faster then the 20 damn years it takes now. 5 years should be enough for appeals.

It is no deterrent now because everyone knows you probably will never actually get executed to begin with.

 

[jan]

I think some people need to be nuked...Charles Manson comes to mind real quick...yet he's alive and well in prison living on the taxpayers dole. What's up with that?

However, I think some sort of DNA evidence needs to be present for the jury to deem the death penalty as the punishment. A lot of folks have been wrongfully imprisoned for years only to have their sentence overturned by DNA proving their innocence.

Let's keep the death penalty, but let's be sure of how we use it.

 

[elvis]

I think some people need to be nuked...Charles Manson comes to mind real quick...yet he's alive and well in prison living on the taxpayers dole. What's up with that?

However, I think some sort of DNA evidence needs to be present for the jury to deem the death penalty as the punishment. A lot of folks have been wrongfully imprisoned for years only to have their sentence overturned by DNA proving their innocence.

Let's keep the death penalty, but let's be sure of how we use it.

Manson was sentenced to the gas chamber, but while he was awaiting execution, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. They later overruled that decision, but double jeopardy.....

 

[jan]

I think some people need to be nuked...Charles Manson comes to mind real quick...yet he's alive and well in prison living on the taxpayers dole. What's up with that?

However, I think some sort of DNA evidence needs to be present for the jury to deem the death penalty as the punishment. A lot of folks have been wrongfully imprisoned for years only to have their sentence overturned by DNA proving their innocence.

Let's keep the death penalty, but let's be sure of how we use it.

Manson was sentenced to the gas chamber, but while he was awaiting execution, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. They later overruled that decision, but double jeopardy.....

I didn't know that!

What do you mean double jeopardy?

 

[JBeukema]

It's not double jeopardy, as he wouldn't be getting tried twice; his original sentence would simply be honored, barring a future hearing

 

[elvis]

It's not double jeopardy, as he wouldn't be getting tried twice; his original sentence would simply be honored, barring a future hearing

You're right it's not double jeopardy, but his original sentence was death penalty, taken down to life in prison. Once sentenced, one cannot get a harsher sentence for the same crime.

 

[JBeukema]

It's not double jeopardy, as he wouldn't be getting tried twice; his original sentence would simply be honored, barring a future hearing

You're right it's not double jeopardy, but his original sentence was death penalty, taken down to life in prison. Once sentenced, one cannot get a harsher sentence for the same crime.

Was the original sentence overturned or was his execution indefinitely suspended, technically, in paper, in the most sophistical legal sense?

 

[elvis]

It's not double jeopardy, as he wouldn't be getting tried twice; his original sentence would simply be honored, barring a future hearing

You're right it's not double jeopardy, but his original sentence was death penalty, taken down to life in prison. Once sentenced, one cannot get a harsher sentence for the same crime.

Was the original sentence overturned or was his execution indefinitely suspended, technically, in paper, in the most sophistical legal sense?

overturned, i believe.

 

[JBeukema]

you're right it's not double jeopardy, but his original sentence was death penalty, taken down to life in prison. Once sentenced, one cannot get a harsher sentence for the same crime.

was the original sentence overturned or was his execution indefinitely suspended, technically, in paper, in the most sophistical legal sense?

overturned, i believe.

$&q)*&_$ $*(_ #%(_&#(*#_ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[elvis]

was the original sentence overturned or was his execution indefinitely suspended, technically, in paper, in the most sophistical legal sense?

overturned, i believe.

$&q)*&_$ $*(_ #%(_&#(*#_ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeah if it were possible, he'd be fried by now. He has been up for parole about 12 times, the first time being in 1978.

 

[Steve Jobs]

Capital punishment for the win!

• No chance of reoffending (most criminals do after being released from prison)
• Less money spent keeping the criminal alive in prison on taxpayer's money
• If utilized properly and more often, would drastically reduce the number of inmates in US prisons

Some crimes that I do believe should automatically warrant the death penalty:

• Drunk driving that leads to a fatal wreck
• Child molestation/rape, or possession of child pornography, pedophilia
• First degree murder of any kind

I've always wanted to know why the deaths of those caused by drunks aren't considered vehicular manslaughter. Apparently, that only qualifies if you speed up and purposely run someone over with your vehicle.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm against the death penalty in all cases. There's never a condition where it's right to take another person's life, regardless of what they've done. Too many innocent people are put to death. And it's not even an effective deterrent.

 

[JBeukema]

There's never a condition where it's right to take another person's life

Oh?

You would not take a man's life in self-defense, or to protect your woman, child, or liberties? You would not slay a tyrant to set yourself, your family, your nation free? You would not end the life of a man, if it would prevent six million deaths? If your claims are truly heartfelt, and indicative of your nature... then I can declare you to be worse than a ******- for even a ****** can praise a hero. Your words are spoken out of a clear shortsightedness, and your foolishness is worse than malice, for while malice can be manipulated, and evil men made to act for the greater good, even the evilest of men do not do so much harm or bring so much grief to humanity as those who would do nothing to stop them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's never a condition where it's right to take another person's life

Oh?

You would not take a man's life in self-defense, or to protect your woman, child, or liberties? You would not slay a tyrant to set yourself, your family, your nation free? You would not end the life of a man, if it would prevent six million deaths? If your claims are truly heartfelt, and indicative of your nature... then I can declare you to be worse than a ******- for even a ****** can praise a hero. Your words are spoken out of a clear shortsightedness, and your foolishness is worse than malice, for while malice can be manipulated, and evil men made to act for the greater good, even the evilest of men do not do so much harm or bring so much grief to humanity as those who would do nothing to stop them.

I don't believe it's ever right to kill somebody, whatever they may have done. However, I realize I am far from perfect, and would likely do what I needed to do in any of your hypothetical situations. However, none of those situations has anything to do with capital punishment, which I remain against for any reason.

 

[Agnapostate]

The modern application of the American death penalty is based on an irrational lynch mob mentality that dismisses rational analysis in favor of appeasement of primitive emotional whims and a crude bloodlust for retribution. For example, consider Garland's The Peculiar Forms of American Capital Punishment. As noted therein:

[T]oday's death penalty is a negative mirror image of a public torture lynching—an inverse institution, a disavowal, calculated to resist and deny any such association. But substantively, many of the same social forces that previously prompted lynchings nowadays prompt capital punishment; many of the same social functions performed by lynching then are performed by capital punishment now; and much the same political structures that permitted lynchings then, enable capital punishment now.

However, this mentality conflicts with rational analysis into appropriate utilization of capital punishment. For example, if we are informed by rational deterrence theory, we are aware that imposing a standard of "an eye for an eye" wherein the death penalty is quickly utilized as a punishment for even single murders is irrational. By depriving the criminal justice system of the opportunity to impose additional punishments, the usage of death penalty for a single murder offense creates a perverse incentive to commit additional murders and violently resist attempts at police capture. We thus see how petty desires for retribution conflict with rational policy formation, and in fact create a worse situation than what the emotional desire initially reacted to.

Before Puberty. Pretty simple concept.

Your advocacy of this is not consistent with empirical research into the psychological effects of rape and related forms of sexual assault or the aforementioned formation of policy based on rational deterrence theory. Firstly, as to the latter, imposing the death penalty for rape establishes a perverse incentive for the rapist to murder his victim and violently resist attempts at police capture, just as imposing the death penalty for single murders does. Moreover, if there was any sound basis for distinguishing between rape and sexual assault against children and rape and sexual assault against (reproductive) adults, it would incorporate the reality of lesser emotional trauma imposed on child victims by rape than on reproductive adults, as noted by Thornhill and Thornhill's An evolutionary analysis of psychological pain following rape: I. The effects of victim's age and marital status. As noted by Thornhill and Palmer in Why Men Rape, "[a]nalysis of the data showed that young women suffered greater distress after a rape than did children or women who were past reproductive age. That finding makes evolutionary sense, because it is young women who were at risk of being impregnated by an undesirable mate."

Of course, given that this study was a component of the later research conducted by Randy Thornhill and his later anthropologist partner Craig Palmer (after his divorce from his wife, who was his anthropologist partner in this study, as it were), into the evolutionary basis for rape and related forms of sexual assault, it was politicized along with the remainder of their research by lobbies that claimed there was an attempt to provide an ethical justification for such acts. However, considering that such would have constituted a blatant committal of the naturalistic fallacy, that accusation was absurd. But I digress...your preferred "solution" is based on an unchecked emotional response of the "lynch mob" mentality described by Garland, and is thus unsuitable for rational policy formation.

The Death Penalty needs to happen a lot faster then the 20 damn years it takes now. 5 years should be enough for appeals.

That would almost certainly increase the prevalence of unjust executions of the innocent.