Brevik sentenced

[Allezfan]

No.

It does not say that you shouldn't covet your neighbors slaves. Go back and read it again. If you're going to try to "ad lib" your argument, quote the verse/commandment correctly.

"Never desire to take your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox, his donkey, or anything else that belongs to him."

Gods word translation of exodus 20:17.

Really? Are you going to attempt to argue that it costs MORE for someone to be put to death than to be put in prison for life and live that life at today's mortality tables?

According to a commission which studied it in america, yes. "The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate."

 

[TX Bill]

"Never desire to take your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox, his donkey, or anything else that belongs to him."

Gods word translation of exodus 20:17.





According to a commission which studied it in america, yes. "The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate."

Ah yes, man servant, maid servant.

Not if they're put to death. If they're not, well then certainly the cost could escalate. (i.e. On death row for 25 years)

But if they're put to death? Ummmm....no. The math just doesn't work.

 

[TX Bill]

No. When did I say that? You've completely made that up.

I do think there are crimes that deserve death e.g. the rape of minors, mass murder etc.

You're completely ignoring what I was saying. I'm not equating slavery to the death penalty, I'm saying that they can't be equated therefore you shouldn't give 'it's been around forever' as a reason something is right when it has no correlation whatsoever.

Heh. And yet your first response in the thread was doing just that. Any wonder why I'm confused now?

 

[Azzurri]

Heh. And yet your first response in the thread was doing just that. Any wonder why I'm confused now?

I was equating them to show how they couldn't be equated.

 

[Allezfan]

Heh. And yet your first response in the thread was doing just that. Any wonder why I'm confused now?

It's not equating the two. It's destroying an argument by presenting a fact that doesn't fit.

It's like you saying "I like artetafan because he has facial hair. All men with facial hair are good men" and then azzurri responding by saying "hitler had facial hair". That's not equating me to hitler, thats using an example we all agree is reprehensible to prove the weakness of your argument.

 

[Slavan]

That said, I believe every man has the right to be free.

exactly.
If I was allowed to leave rep, I would.

 

[Azzurri]

It's not equating the two. It's destroying an argument by presenting a fact that doesn't fit.

It's like you saying "I like artetafan because he has facial hair. All men with facial hair are good men" and then azzurri responding by saying "hitler had facial hair". That's not equating me to hitler, thats using an example we all agree is reprehensible to prove the weakness of your argument.

*Makes mental note never to argue with Artetafan*

 

[Phyllis Stein]

exactly.
If I was allowed to leave rep, I would.

Freedom requires vigilance, when freedoms start harming others certain checks need bringing in. Like why we have speed limits on roads.

 

[Tubey]

Unfortunately, due to the sheer number of poorly made death row convictions, it's not a viable sentence in the modern world.

I say unfortunately as there are definite monsters like Anders Breivik and Jessie Dotson (look him up by the way, Lester Street Massacre, thoroughly deserves death).

But the Americans in particular have a poor record of recognising mental retardation as a factor in a heinous crime and as such they don't put the sentence on just "bad" people, they also apply it to genuinely "mad" people. http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/mental-retardation-and-death-penalty

Then you have the simple fact that the death sentence is proven not to be the deterrent you'd expect it to be, so it has no practical purpose. As mentioned earlier, it's also very expensive as it doesn't take a week for someone to be put to death.

But it all comes down to one thing - the shameful amount of errors.

Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.

It's impossible to know how many actually where put to death and were innocent.

So without the apparatus to guarantee that those who receive this penalty are guilty 100% of the time, then it should be disallowed. I actually cannot understand the mindset of people who support the death penalty.

 

[Brennan]

It has every place in a civilized society. In fact, it's been around since the dawn of time. In both civilized and uncivilized societies.

And another cause/effect argument with not one shred of evidence. So Norwegian crime rates are down due to the types of punishment they have? I'm guessing that those two have absolutely ZERO correlation to one another.

So let me get this straight, you're saying that killing a killer for the sake of killing them, is civilised ? Because there is absolutely zero reason to do it otherwise.

- It costs far more to put somebody to death legally after following the lengthy conviction and appeals process which are part and parcel of a modern judicial system
- It is not a deterrent, as COUNTLESS studies have proven time and time again
- Many families of victims say that it does not help them overcome their loss
- There have been many errors regarding convictions of death row inmates

I struggle to see what argument you can put forward other than 'Oh well he killed somebody so he should die', which is playground logic.

 

[Brennan]

Unfortunately, due to the sheer number of poorly made death row convictions, it's not a viable sentence in the modern world.

I say unfortunately as there are definite monsters like Anders Breivik and Jessie Dotson (look him up by the way, Lester Street Massacre, thoroughly deserves death).

But the Americans in particular have a poor record of recognising mental retardation as a factor in a heinous crime and as such they don't put the sentence on just "bad" people, they also apply it to genuinely "mad" people. http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/mental-retardation-and-death-penalty

Then you have the simple fact that the death sentence is proven not to be the deterrent you'd expect it to be, so it has no practical purpose. As mentioned earlier, it's also very expensive as it doesn't take a week for someone to be put to death.

But it all comes down to one thing - the shameful amount of errors.



It's impossible to know how many actually where put to death and were innocent.

So without the apparatus to guarantee that those who receive this penalty are guilty 100% of the time, then it should be disallowed. I actually cannot understand the mindset of people who support the death penalty.

I'd rather a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be put to death just so angry people can feel some sort of retribution. It's killing for killing's sake and nothing more.

 

[Big Fat Sam]

I think there are certain cases where the death penalty should be used, i.e. when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that somebody has committed a crime worth of being put to death. Breivik; we all know he did it, he admitted it, there is enough evidence, he should be killed. Then others, Ian Brady same thing, Ian Huntley, same thing, etc etc.

I think if there are convictions where there is a mini shred of doubt but it is overwhelmingly likely that the person is guilty, then they should be jailed.