|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Oct 27, 2008 2:11:35 GMT -5
DETERRENCE is not PREVENTION! Then your logic is that if we killed all Americans they would commit no murders? OK, but I oppose killing any of the native Americans - they've suffered enough since the invasion. Dearest Haddock! No. i have no desire to see Native Americans harmed in any way! I'm disappointed with you! You're putting up a smoke screen because you can't rationally refute the deterrence argument! Your objection about wrongful DP sentences belongs on another thread! Abolishing the DP will have no influence on the problem of wrongful convictions, which will only get less news coverage when the wrongfully accused was not sentenced to death!
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Oct 27, 2008 11:27:36 GMT -5
No. i have no desire to see Native Americans harmed in any way! I'm disappointed with you! You're putting up a smoke screen because you can't rationally refute the deterrence argument! Your objection about wrongful DP sentences belongs on another thread! Abolishing the DP will have no influence on the problem of wrongful convictions, which will only get less news coverage when the wrongfully accused was not sentenced to death! I'm merely pointing out that you continue to make illogical arguments. As another person pointed out on another board, you have a faith based belief that there is some combination of evidence and wickedness that makes it acceptable to execute another person. Having seen what really happens in the US system I know that it will not work - that it is not the worst crimes nor the strongest evidence that result in execution but factors such as media interest, public outrage, racism or other prejudices and all too often random bad luck. Scot Peterson got the DP despite a complete lack of evidence against him AND the fact that if he had committed this crime it would be very low on the 'badness' scale, something the prosecutors admitted. You are like a doctor who says, "Well, yes, I do accidentally kill a lot of people who come to me with mild illnesses but it's OK because I'm discouraging others from seeking medical help"! I'd rather forgo the deaths and concentrate on accuracy and certainty. The DP is an easy out for lazy politicians and police/prosecutors who won't do their work. When the first person left death row due to DNA evidence the penalty should have been suspended. But Americans love to kill their own so much that they willed themselves into blindness so they could carry on with it.
|
|
|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Oct 27, 2008 14:58:44 GMT -5
No. i have no desire to see Native Americans harmed in any way! I'm disappointed with you! You're putting up a smoke screen because you can't rationally refute the deterrence argument! Your objection about wrongful DP sentences belongs on another thread! Abolishing the DP will have no influence on the problem of wrongful convictions, which will only get less news coverage when the wrongfully accused was not sentenced to death! I'm merely pointing out that you continue to make illogical arguments. As another person pointed out on another board, you have a faith based belief that there is some combination of evidence and wickedness that makes it acceptable to execute another person. Having seen what really happens in the US system I know that it will not work - that it is not the worst crimes nor the strongest evidence that result in execution but factors such as media interest, public outrage, racism or other prejudices and all too often random bad luck. Scot Peterson got the DP despite a complete lack of evidence against him AND the fact that if he had committed this crime it would be very low on the 'badness' scale, something the prosecutors admitted. You are like a doctor who says, "Well, yes, I do accidentally kill a lot of people who come to me with mild illnesses but it's OK because I'm discouraging others from seeking medical help"! I'd rather forgo the deaths and concentrate on accuracy and certainty. The DP is an easy out for lazy politicians and police/prosecutors who won't do their work. When the first person left death row due to DNA evidence the penalty should have been suspended. But Americans love to kill their own so much that they willed themselves into blindness so they could carry on with it. I agree that there is reasonable doubt in the Scott Peterson and the DP in this particular case is inappropriate! I would have to disqualify myself as a juror in his case because i also feel a dislike towards that person after reading the transcripts of his phone calls with this woman he was interested in.. Still you are right that the DP shouldn't be applicable in this case! That's the subject of another thread! Abolishing the DP would certainly lead to a big increase in capital murders and murders in general as it did in the 70s when the DP was abolished by the Supreme Court!
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Oct 27, 2008 21:38:17 GMT -5
It's difficult for us wowies because it's not clear-cut for us. Unlike antis and fry circus pros, who adopt a consistent position of executing everyone or no one, we only want to execute the worst murderers.
The trouble is that they are the very people who are NOT deterred by the prospect of the death penalty. Suicide bombers, terrorists in general, psycho killers like Ed Gein and the like, Mafia hitmen, are NOT worried about the prospect of execution. Terrorists would even WELCOME it.
If you take the case of Gary Gilmore, he went out of his way to commit his murders in states where he thought it was most likely that he WOULD receive a death sentence. When antis campaigned to have his sentence commuted he protested that he wanted to 'die like a man.'
Gary Gilmore's case is one of the clearest counterarguments to the deterrence claim.
I remain a supporter of the death penalty and wish that it was used more often than it is but I am totally unconvinced that it would deter more than a handful of murderers and, to be honest, only the very ones that I wouldn't want to execute anyway.
Sorry, dear Eva. I love you very much but we just disagree on this one.
|
|
|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Oct 28, 2008 13:03:02 GMT -5
It's difficult for us wowies because it's not clear-cut for us. Unlike antis and fry circus pros, who adopt a consistent position of executing everyone or no one, we only want to execute the worst murderers. The trouble is that they are the very people who are NOT deterred by the prospect of the death penalty. Suicide bombers, terrorists in general, psycho killers like Ed Gein and the like, Mafia hitmen, are NOT worried about the prospect of execution. Terrorists would even WELCOME it. If you take the case of Gary Gilmore, he went out of his way to commit his murders in states where he thought it was most likely that he WOULD receive a death sentence. When antis campaigned to have his sentence commuted he protested that he wanted to 'die like a man.' Gary Gilmore's case is one of the clearest counterarguments to the deterrence claim. I remain a supporter of the death penalty and wish that it was used more often than it is but I am totally unconvinced that it would deter more than a handful of murderers and, to be honest, only the very ones that I wouldn't want to execute anyway. Sorry, dear Eva. I love you very much but we just disagree on this one. Dearest Linda! I never denied that a minority of capital murderers are suicidal and suicidal murderers are not deterred by death! Often they succeed in killing themselves before they are arrested!
The offender profiles of capital murderers are varied and diverse! The vast majority of them are clearly NOT suicidal!Suicidal rage killers like Gary Gilmore and the suicide bombers are no more than a tiny non-representative minority of killers! For this tiny minority LWOP is probably the greater punishment, but the suicidal rage killer is very dangerous in prison!
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Oct 29, 2008 11:05:38 GMT -5
I never denied that a minority of capital murderers are suicidal and suicidal murderers are not deterred by death! Often they succeed in killing themselves before they are arrested! Rubbish. Look at the number of people who kill their partners, their children and then themselves. Look at the number who commit stupid crimes and don't care if they get caught. All studies I am aware of say the same thing - it is the fear of prompt detection and arrest that provides the most effective barrier to crime, not the harshness of the punishment. You simply want to kill people. Unlike me, you don't care about how accurate the system is as long as there are executions.
|
|
|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Oct 30, 2008 10:56:21 GMT -5
I never denied that a minority of capital murderers are suicidal and suicidal murderers are not deterred by death! Often they succeed in killing themselves before they are arrested! Rubbish. Look at the number of people who kill their partners, their children and then themselves. Look at the number who commit stupid crimes and don't care if they get caught. All studies I am aware of say the same thing - it is the fear of prompt detection and arrest that provides the most effective barrier to crime, not the harshness of the punishment. You simply want to kill people. Unlike me, you don't care about how accurate the system is as long as there are executions. I never denied that a minority of murderers are suicidal or otherwise undeterrable by the DP! To claim that i "simply want to kill people", is like claiming that someone who is pro-choice simply wants to kill babies!I'm posting only the link to this chart because as you see i'd bust the bandwidth on this thread if i posted it as a pic!
i33.tinypic.com/1zxvcwh.jpg
The DP is clearly by and large a deterrent as we see from the graph! The US Supreme Court's social experiment or 'loving gesture' of abolishing capital punishment led to a massive increase in murders during the 1970s! I admit that other factors play a role in the increase and decrease of homicides! For instance when the economy weakens burglary and robbers murders increase, while hobby murders and serial murders decrease! When the economy improves the robbery murders decrease and murder for the 'kick', thrill or as an 'evil hobby' increases. Everyone here seems to agree that many other factors contribute to the rise and fall of homicide rates! The fact that some refuse to concede that the DP could is a factor as well is curious to say the least.
Everyone here seems to agree that higher prices will deter people from going to the movies or purchasing certain items.. Stiffer penalties will deter or reduce traffic violations also! Those are logical and reasonable assumptions to make!
It is likewise a logical and reasonable assumption that the death penalty deters potential murderers-especially potential capital murderers-from committing their envisioned murder! If we make the reasonable assumption, when looking at the graph, that the DP does deter murder and thus saves innocent lives as well as the lives of potential murderers then we can conclude that the Supreme Court's decision to abolish the DP in the 70s led to about 150,000 more homicides than would have been the case if the DP remained legal and unaltered in the 70s.
Anyone who claims that the DP does not deter potential murderers is simply claiming that ALL potential murderers, without exception, unlike the rest of humanity, cannot be deterred from their envisioned murder because of a stiffer punishment such as the death penalty. They are claiming that ALL potental murderers are simply robotic and have no sense of self perservation and will not avoid self endangering situations.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Oct 30, 2008 16:19:12 GMT -5
I am claiming that most, if not all potential murderers are robotic. They lack the kind of heart and feelings that most of us have. Kind of like the tin man, but definitely not as friendly. There sure is something robotic about someone who could kill...
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Oct 30, 2008 21:42:57 GMT -5
I'm posting only the link to this chart because as you see i'd bust the bandwidth on this thread if i posted it as a pic! Please either take a course on statistics or stop trying to use them. You simply don't know what you are talking about. What if I could prove to you that there is one factor, one statistic, one thing that every murderer has in common with every other murderer? Wouldn't that tell us exactly what to do to stop murder? Well, there is such a factor. This is it: Every single murderer in the USA in the last 200 years has one thing in common with the others. Each and every one of them has, at one time or another, eaten mashed potatoes. So according to your logic, if we make it a crime to prepare, serve or eat mashed potatoes we will end murder. There. Wasn't that easy? And that is your logic. Take any two factors and, without proving any causal connection between them, assume that one affects the other.
|
|
|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Nov 3, 2008 16:43:09 GMT -5
I am claiming that most, if not all potential murderers are robotic. They lack the kind of heart and feelings that most of us have. Kind of like the tin man, but definitely not as friendly. There sure is something robotic about someone who could kill... Hi Pumpkin! Potential murderers may have "robotic tendencies" to varying degrees, but completely robotic? If a "potential murderer" is deterred from going to the movies because the price has been doubled, but is incapable of being deterred by the dangers or moral arguments involved in committing murder than i can't help but believe that this "offender profile" is the invention of some defense attorney hoping to help murderers get lighter sentences!
Of course suicidal killers seem to be robotic in the sense that deterrents don't work!
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Nov 3, 2008 21:32:04 GMT -5
Hi Pumpkin! Potential murderers may have "robotic tendencies" to varying degrees, but completely robotic? If a "potential murderer" is deterred from going to the movies because the price has been doubled, but is incapable of being deterred by the dangers or moral arguments involved in committing murder than i can't help but believe that this "offender profile" is the invention of some defense attorney hoping to help murderers get lighter sentences! Of course suicidal killers seem to be robotic in the sense that deterrents don't work! Wrong. When politicians are asked to make reasonable changes in the laws, changes which will lead to savings for the government, reduced crime rates, lower recidivism, lower compensation for the wrongly convicted or many other things all of which benefit the public they instead make stupid, cowardly or illogical decisions even though they have all of the time they need to consider the arguments and to get advice from all sources. So if politicians can't make good decisions under ideal conditions why do you expect a criminal, under severe stress, with little information, possibly while drug addicted, to make a calm, logical and sensible decision? You'd have more success teaching your dog to drive.
|
|
|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Nov 7, 2008 16:18:29 GMT -5
I'm reposting this more appropriately here from the victims' memorial thread at ccadp.proboards40.com/index.cgi?board=victims&action=display&thread=6769&page=2Can you guarantee that if you execute these two there will never be another murder in the USA? Ever? How can you make such a claim? Deterrence is not prevention! If only a dozen potential killers out of a 100 decide against committing murder for sadistic lusts because they feel the DP is too great a risk to run than it should be our duty to support capital punishment!
You confuse me! You support the DP for "political criminals" and "terrorists", but oppose the DP if no political agenda is involved! I'm baffled! These "murder mac terrorists" were interested in promoting pure evil! Potential evil thrill seekers should be much easier to deter with the DP than potential political criminals or suicidal ideological terrorists!
|
|