I don't understand your hostility. This is a debate of the issues, not personal. Do you have some issues that prevent you from the normal and accepted debate process? We can agree that the process of parole and/or the judicial system may need change, but my question to you is: If we could see to it that convicted murders did not get out of prison, wouldn't that prevent them from killing again, and end the need for the death penalty? Or are there other underlying issues that you are dealing with on this subject? Did a member of your family, or a friend die as a result of a released convict, who killed again? You seem so agitated on this issue, as if you are working out you own personal sense of powerlessness in this area. You become quite restimulated when I suggest an alternative solution to the problem you bring up. Did someone damage you, violate you, or someone you know personally? I am just trying to understand why you become so emotional on this issue.
Optional, my instincts scream that you are being your usual sarcatic self with this post, but I am going to go against my better judgement this once and go out on a limb and take the chance that you're being serious. You know very well what my hostility - if you prefer to call it that - stems from. Early in this thread YOU made it personal by calling me a liar and misrepresenting what I had written, among other things. Up until then I was of the opinion that we were having a good, albeit heated, tough debate. Then you went off on your personal attack. Furthermore, when you asked for one of my sources and I offered to do so provided you apologized to me afterwards, you declined. I do not feel that you follow the "normal and accepted debate process" as you have shown a need to slander your opponent when things don't go your way. To answer your question: NO, even if there were some miraculous change in the judicial system that ensured that murderers were not released back into the public, I would not then feel that the issue is solved. Certain cases, in my opinion, demand the death penalty. Not only do I think that capital punishment sends a strong message to criminals, but it also tells the victim's family and society at large that we value the sanctity of innocent life above all else. By having no death penalty, the message being sent is that no matter how much suffering and death you cause, the worst that can happen to you is confinement, three meals a day, medical care, access to books and television, time to work out, etc. Good grief, for many criminals, this is a step up in their daily existence! There are also economic costs that I have detailed earlier in this thread. I have known victims of rape, drug abuse and child molestation. The effects are horrendous. Life-long scars, physical and mental. I have answered your question, so please answer mine: How do you justify this statement?
Quote from OPTIONAL777: "If only 200 murderers released from prison either via parole or serving their term end up murdering others, I would say that the prisons are doing their job of helping to rehabilitate." I don't remember the context of that statement, but as it stands, yes, I agree with it. If the issue is rehabilitation, and not certainty that no person will die at the hands of a former murderer, I would say that only 200 out of all the convicted murderers rehabilitated and made productive members of society is a success story. If we are successful 98% of the time, yes, I think most people would say the rehabilitation process is working. Now, does that meet your 100% criteria? Obviously not. So, we do agree that your real issue is not the protection of others from being murdered by a former murderer, but rather one punishment and deterrent. I say this as I quote you: "To answer your question: NO, even if there were some miraculous change in the judicial system that ensured that murderers were not released back into the public, I would not then feel that the issue is solved. Certain cases, in my opinion, demand the death penalty. Not only do I think that capital punishment sends a strong message to criminals, but it also tells the victim's family and society at large that we value the sanctity of innocent life above all else. By having no death penalty, the message being sent is that no matter how much suffering and death you cause, the worst that can happen to you is confinement, three meals a day, medical care, access to books and television, time to work out, etc. Good grief, for many criminals, this is a step up in their daily existence! There are also economic costs that I have detailed earlier in this thread." So, can you provide any data that supports the theory that execution rather than incarceration is a more effective means to keep people from murder? If you just want to kill them because of some moral position, that is difficult to argue with. How can one argue someone's Biblical based morality, or some other black and white approach to life? How about if we brought back torture, so that those who were convicted of murder were made to live a life so hellish that they wished they would die? Would that be sufficient? Would we still need to kill them? I still am feeling that there is something in your background, some bad experience that has shaped your position, which to me seems all too black and white. Am I wrong?
Damn right it doesn't. First of all, the figure is higher than 200, but to keep things very simple, let's keep it at that number and go with your 98% figure. Now, 98% may seem like a terrific number in most instances, i.e. medicine X has proven capable of eliminating breast cancer 98% of the time, or such-and-such trading strategy is profitable 98% of the time (!), etc. The reason 98% is an F grade in this instance and not an A, is obvious, isn't it? Because we're talking about 200 HUMAN LIVES here! If 2% of released murderers shop lifted or went around spraying grafitti on walls, I would join you and say yes, the rehabilitation process is successful. But that of course is not the case. Anything less than 100%, therefore, is failure here. If the US is successful against 99.99% of the attempts for terrorists to smuggle in and set off a nuclear device in our country, and the one that gets through takes out NYC/LA/SF/Chicago/Atlanta - take your pick - killing millions of people, can we say we've been "successful"? Many in the against crowd like to say "better no capital punishment than 1 innocent person being executed." This is laughable, because not only has it never occured (ask dGAB), but murderers are being released and killing again. Why aren't those "innocent persons" ever talked about? No, we do not agree on that. Read this thread, especially the last several posts. I've posted data. And of course, execution absolutely positively solves the problem of recidivity, doesn't it? Maybe you should start a thread on that. Personally, I would be against it. If a pit bull attacks a child, do we torture it before putting it to sleep? Do ranchers torture wolves that have been caught killing their livestock? Yes, you're wrong. Sorry to disappoint you. Not everything is shades of grey, Optional. US support of Saddam in the 80's is a grey area, althought bung argues differently. A lot is grey in our world, but not, IMHO, this. What I continue to fail to understand is why you and the anti-capital punishment crowd are so eager to champion the rights of murderers over those of innocent citizens.
This boy is a sophist, but not too sophisticated. Faulty analogies undermine arguments. Ad hominem attacks reveal the weakness of the attacker and the inability to spar effectively in the arena of ideas. In debate, the sophist crumbles. Were it not for a pm telling me about Hapaboy's recent posts directed at me on this thread, I would have been deprived of the comedy of his silly and obsessive vituperative, most of which is unoriginal and gleaned from attacks he/she read elsewhere. The sophist strikes 1. As a society, will we have the same tolerance for Nuclear attack as we do for individual murder? Obviously not. Faulty analogy. The sophist strikes 2. Data previously listed on murder rates and the availability of the death penalty fail to take into account overall trends in violent crime and nonviolent crime. Nearly all instances of reported crime rose during these periods, most of which the death penalty could barely be conceived of as a deterrent (i.e. drug possession and distribution, burglary, robbery, auto theft, etc.). The sophist strikes 3. Hapaboy is an intellectual and emotional recidivist. In attempts at debate, he commits the same transgressions of poor form, boorish style, and lack of argumentative substance again, and again, and again..... I am not sure why hapaboy has succumbed to such folly, because for years others have delivered potent and coolheaded arguments in favor of the death penalty.
(YAWN) blah, blah, blah....how's the research going on the innocent people who have been executed in the U.S., dGAB?!? You sound mysteriously like Optional at times. (Darth Vader voice goes here) He has taught you well, dgabriel. Or, gasp!, are you one and the same?!? Faulty analogies, ad hominem attacks, the inability to spar effectively - these are all your calling cards, dGAB, not mine. I love the "were it not for a PM telling me..." bit! LOL! Hilarious how you keep putting me on ignore and then return over and over and over again. That you have a scat fetish can no longer be questioned as you step into your own faeces time and time again. Fear not, we'll have a telethon for you later.
I have a better idea. Since you're the internet fact finding troll, why don't you list the number of convicted murderers who have had their convictions overturned on evidentiary grounds? Optional and me the same? Could be.
Seems there is a lot you are failing to understand about the anti-capital punishment perspective. Imagine a society, that immediately put Down syndrome children to death, upon diagnosis. Retarded children are killed immediately upon classification. Children with terminal illnesses are put to death upon that diagnosis. Why do we spend millions of dollars on research, in the hope that we can find cures for these human beings, who are nothing but an economic drain on society? We do so, because of our evolved and civilized nature, and the simple fact that science is not complete. Men of science know that over the course of history, advancements have come when they are least expected, which have saved lives and improved the quality of lives. Why do I argue in favor of jail for a criminal, who has committed murder over death? It is because I do value life. I believe in the redemption process. I also value science, and I value the opportunity for even the most unhealthy, diseased people to recover. We have made major strides in the field of human psychology and criminal psychology in the past 50 years. We have discovered that many criminals were driven to their actions due to faulty brain chemistry, not faulty morals. So, what you suggest is that since we cannot insure that a former murderer won't kill again, we should just kill him. That same line of reasoning kills down syndrome children, retarded children, terminal children, etc., because we are not sure we can cure them. Why should their parents and family suffer, why should we allow such a burden on society? You seem to suggest that there can never, or will never be a cure for those who have murdered. Throughout history, we have seen that murder has consequences, most often the consequence is death. Has it worked? Did it stop people from killing? No, it didn't. Why? Why didn't the thought of being put to death for murder stop them? There is so much we don't know about the human mind, and your suggestion to kill, and not allow them to live as science advances, goes to the heart of the issue. Who is to say that we won't be 100% successful in rehabilitation at some point? And how will we ever know if we are successful until we release the reformed back into society? How will we know if we don't try? If we don't try to find cures for diseases of the body, we won't find them. If we don't try to find cures for the diseases of the mind that lead one to kill another, we won't find them either. Yes, from a societal perspective, for the common good of all men, it is worth the risk to keep trying to cure the criminals, and rehabilitate them----rather than kill them. Really, it is the only humane approach that can be found. It is the only evolutionary and scientific approach that can be supported by a scientific and civilized society. Now, if you just want to punish, what can I say? That is your right to feel that way, but any argument against rehabilitation or against being able to confine the criminals is failing in the manner you present it. I have asked you this several times now, and you don't seem to want to answer: Is there some trauma in your history that makes you so inclined to the death penalty, that perhaps clouds your objectivity in this issue?
Comparing murderers to innocent, retarded children is just absurd. Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that there is a scientific reason why murderers kill, just as there is a scientific anomaly that causes Downs Syndrome. You appear to believe that science can explain all things if we give it enough time and resources to do so. I disagree. Some human beings are just plain evil. All human beings have a capacity for evil, to do harm to others, but most of us are able to control that urge when it arises, i.e. you and your ex-wife. Others are predators, plain and pure. Scientists, doctors, social workers, criminologists, etc, etc. have studied crime and criminals for centuries, and what has their research wrought? Our country recently passed the 2 million mark for our prison/jail population. Research obviously isn't helping much now, is it? At some point, you have to say "enough." How many innocent people have to die before you and those like you realize that? If you truly do value life you would realize that capital punishment is the ultimate expression that you value innocent life, that of the victim over the murderer. Um, excuse me, but we've been releasing the supposedly "reformed" back into society for quite some time now, Optional. And look at what that has cost us - thousands of innocent lives a year. Yes, rehabilitation is obviously a booming success for all to see. No. It has been allowed to continue for long enough. Fortunately, the majority of the states and population of the US think so too. It is inhumane that these scum are allowed to live while the rest of society pays the tab not only financially but in further deaths and acts of savagery. You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is that you have failed to present any logical reasons against capital punishment, except a futile optimism in science that disregards the costs to society in the here and now. I thought I had answered your question already. NO - there has not been a particular trauma in my life as far as experiencing murder up close. I have known victims of rape, child molestation, and drug abuse. NOTHING is clouding my objectivity. You need to do a check on yourself.
(YAWN) Just admit you've put your foot in your mouth AGAIN, dGAB. Ya know, with one more neuron you'd have a synapse. Please deprive me of your company and put me back on Ignore.