BF2S Forums Lol the most interesting thing, death penalty

FEOS wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

That chart is so simple, and quite obviously slanted towards the notion that the death penalty lowers homocide rates.

So because the data doesn't support your position, it's "simple" and "quite obviously slanted"? That's a bit of a narrow-minded view.

The report that said death penalty deters crime was just one study, and it was challenged by lots of people. 

I confused Kens chart with the one in Kmarions OP.

Spearhead wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

That chart is so simple, and quite obviously slanted towards the notion that the death penalty lowers homocide rates.

So because the data doesn't support your position, it's "simple" and "quite obviously slanted"? That's a bit of a narrow-minded view.

The report that said death penalty deters crime was just one study, and it was challenged by lots of people. 

I confused Kens chart with the one in Kmarions OP.

OK. One report. I certainly get the statistical questions that come out of a single data point (or small set of data points) showing a different trend than the others, but you can't simply throw it out as "simple" and "slanted" for that reason alone. Call it "statistically insignificant" or "flawed analysis, proven by peer review" but when you label data that goes against your thesis as "simple" or "slanted" with no other explanation than that it goes against your thesis, then objectivity comes into question.

That's all I'm saying.

FEOS wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So because the data doesn't support your position, it's "simple" and "quite obviously slanted"? That's a bit of a narrow-minded view.

The report that said death penalty deters crime was just one study, and it was challenged by lots of people. 

I confused Kens chart with the one in Kmarions OP.

OK. One report. I certainly get the statistical questions that come out of a single data point (or small set of data points) showing a different trend than the others, but you can't simply throw it out as "simple" and "slanted" for that reason alone. Call it "statistically insignificant" or "flawed analysis, proven by peer review" but when you label data that goes against your thesis as "simple" or "slanted" with no other explanation than that it goes against your thesis, then objectivity comes into question.

That's all I'm saying.

I agree with the data on this subject being flawed. There's simply no obvious way that you can analyse all the vast number of changing causes and influences going on in a huge society. Plotting things like homicides vs. executions is fairly pointless because of the vast number of other changes that occur with time that will also be influencing both of those numbers. Presumably you could think of hundreds of other factors that can influence the number of homicides in a country.

On a more specific question, on Ken's line graph, is the executions in each year the number of executions carried out that year, the number of people that were sentenced to be executed that year , or the number of people who committed crimes that will lead them to be executed that year?

Turquoise wrote:

Um...  I'm guessing English is his second language....

Anyway, like most things, it's conditional.  Sometimes, the death penalty is appropriate.  The main problem with it is that it is ridiculously expensive.

It shouldn't be expensive. There are very quick and inexpensive ways to dish out the damned:



Quick and painless...

Anyone here seen Battle Royale?

Noobeater wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Um...  I'm guessing English is his second language....

Anyway, like most things, it's conditional.  Sometimes, the death penalty is appropriate.  The main problem with it is that it is ridiculously expensive.

It shouldn't be expensive. There are very quick and inexpensive ways to dish out the damned:

Quick and painless...

Actually they found that people who were beheaded died a fair while after they were beheaded simple due to a mixture of blood loss and lack of oxygen to the brain, during the french revolution there are records of people surviving for several minutes after being beheaded.

Personally I 'd go towards painkiller drug overdose as a means of execution and just fill them full of morphine till they're too high to notice there heart has stopped beating.

I'd think its cheaper than the chair.

I think one of the problems with firing squads is that to ensure a quick death you have to hit the brain, anywhere else takes time to kill, as well as that people in firing squads would be likely to get psychological problems.

several minutes?

If I recall correct no longer than 11 seconds ever.

You only see the head's mouth going up and down and blink a few times then it's over, they usually tied the body togheter to give a show to the public aswell, on release of the ropes it would make spastic movements.

Made the crowd go wild.

Sometimes they quickly pulled the head out of the basket so people could so it still having movement.

"Civil" Civilization requires it's citizens alot of basics like food, health, a home, safety, enjoyment, etc.  When you kill people under the guise of a law, you are failing miserably at civilization.

Adding the religious element now.  Unlike the coward, wannabe "christian conservatives" last night at the Republican debate who avoided, laughed off, or squirmed at the question from the youtube user "..what would Jesus do?" each candidate (who normally love to spout off their slogans rich in shameless christian verbage) could not fathom the basic tenet of their faith, that Jesus would simply NOT kill as a form of Justice.  It's not even remotely in his doctrine having "fulfilled" the doctrine of the old covenant (old testamane or mosaic law to take an eye for an eye).  So while they were ok with killing to punish and to (as Huckabee lied) "show an example to others as a deterrence" they could not answer the simple question of what their Master would do..and that would be to forgive, embrace, perhaps re-educate, counsel, even imprison (or offer true "correctional" facilities for them).

So no...as with all the other death penalty threads, as an actual Christian, and as an American citizen embracing civil rights and modern civilization, I believe the death penalty is not to be used...period.  It's an arrogant and vain notion to believe that any city, state, or country can enact laws of punishment that include killing those who killed or hurt others.  And hell yes, we should pay for them to sit and rot away in our "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison system.  We should make reality shows illustrating what happens to prisoners...THAT would be a much better deterrent than reading a headline saying "rapist and serial killer put to death in san quentin death chamber."  Another noble notion is to simply attempt to SOLVE the problem at the source..something Mit Romney said that was right (rare, but he did say something honest)...it starts with the family.  If citizens of any country had healthy, nourishing families, crimes would probably end or diminish considerably.  But alas, I dream...

Prison population?  I've got lots of ideas about that.  And "Prison Break" viewers here?  Make several SONA's in isolated parts of the country where nobody builds homes...let Lord of the Flies law prevail.

While I'm not for killing them, I am against the method of "corrections" they get...TV, personal correspondence, visitations, work shops, gyms, etc...  Hell, I'm not even opposed to slave labor at the expense of prisoners...sitting in a small cell isn't paying any debt to society...paying debt to society means paying debt...WORK their asses (and not in the shower kind of work their asses...).  But then, there goes civilization again... hard to pick.

I watch History channel and always see the prison gang one where they show the AB/BRAND feature and I'm surprised at how such things can take place in prisons.  They should disallow tatoos, gang affiliation, segregation, and plenty of other crap.  Crazy stuff prisons..  *note to self..don't go to prison*  I have two friends in san quentin on death row i haven't written in a year or so.  I might ask them if they've joined the AB or not.

I just read an article in the german newsmagazine "Der Spiegel":

Due to DNA tests, already 208 victims of justice had to be released out of prison - even 15 out of the death row (most were punished for rape).

And that was just a first step, because organisations like "Innocent Project" just have begun to search the archives.

It depends on the crime. If someone killed 30 people, kill them by firing squad.

If it's someone like Zacarias Moussaui who believed he'd be a martyr if he died, then they should be placed in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. No contact with humans. That's the worst non-torturous (if that's a word) torture on earth.

No. In that aspect, the justice system failed them. Our system is supposed to be founded on the principle that it is better to set 100 guilty free than to imprison a single innocent. Unfortunately, the practice doesn't live up to the principle.

FEOS wrote:

No. In that aspect, the justice system failed them. Our system is supposed to be founded on the principle that it is better to set 100 guilty free than to imprison a single innocent. Unfortunately, the practice doesn't live up to the principle.

And that realization alone should be excuse enough to to reserve the death sentence to the most heinous of crimes where there is no shadow of doubt (serial killers, mass murder, etc).  The very astute observation that the justice system is not perfect nor self-correcting is evidence enough in my eyes to in the very least change the sentencing guidelines for death penalty.

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

I agree with Iron Chef - work the bastards and let them live as long as the like.  Privatize prisons so that they are profitable and no longer a bane on society and you will see more support for eliminating the death penalty.  If they had a primary task of manufacturing basic goods we could off set the imports we receive from China.  It isn't like we have to pay minimum wage.  They work to earn their room and board.  If they don't work they don't eat, just like any other person in the work force.  If I stopped working, I would loose everything including my next meal.  Just think how the balance of the economy would shift if all our prisons were self sustaining and were able to minimize out dependence on our communist friends.

I am not categorically opposed to working the prison population.  However, the whole Lord of The Flies or Gulag style work program will never get my vote of approval.

Privatizing prisons is an incredibly close-minded approach to dealing with crime and punishment.  I do not think it is conducive to a civilized society to have a sector of economy dedicated to profiting on punishment and crime.  Look at California, where the Prison Guard Lobby is the most influential PAC in California - not only are more prisons being built, but tougher sentencing guidelines are routinely introduced on behalf of those lobbies, and more and more state money is funnelled to the private sector of corrections.

I do believe the idea of a self-sufficient prison system or at least a less of a burden on taxpayer money is an interesting and very workable solution.  The correctional system is much like the health care system in the U.S. - a lot of associated costs that really have no business being there.