FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Death Penalty USA

Death Penalty USA

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

The death penalty is a legal punishment in 31 US states

? Since 1976 Texas has carried out the most executions (548), followed by Virginia (113) and Oklahoma (112)

? There are 2,817 inmates on death row in the US

? California has the most prisoners on death row, 746, but has carried out only 13 executions since 1976

Over the last five years, 70% of death sentences have been imposed on people of colour - more than half of these sentences were for African-American defendants, according to TCADP.

though less than 13% of Texas's population is African American, they constitute 43.8% of death row inmates, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Those who support the death penalty point out the decreasing trend also reflects a nationwide drop in murder rates, and that the death penalty continues playing an effective role, and retains public support, with the small percentage of eligible homicides.

Do you agree the death penalty should be kept aa deterrent, or should this barbaric act be removed once and for all

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oodnitegirlWoman over a year ago

Yorkshire

I have to admit I’m sat on the fence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

What's an acceptable error rate?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"What's an acceptable error rate?"

Zero

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What do you think grandpa.?

Also black males are 6 times more likely to be incarcerated than white males.Why do you think this is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I have to admit I’m sat on the fence. "

Don’t get splinters in your ass!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"The death penalty is a legal punishment in 31 US states

? Since 1976 Texas has carried out the most executions (548), followed by Virginia (113) and Oklahoma (112)

? There are 2,817 inmates on death row in the US

? California has the most prisoners on death row, 746, but has carried out only 13 executions since 1976

Over the last five years, 70% of death sentences have been imposed on people of colour - more than half of these sentences were for African-American defendants, according to TCADP.

though less than 13% of Texas's population is African American, they constitute 43.8% of death row inmates, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Do you agree the death penalty should be kept aa deterrent, or should this barbaric act be removed once and for all

and what do you tell the families of those that were eventually found innocent..... ooops!! my bad!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

since you used texas as an example.... this might be worth adding to the conversation...

"Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. As a percentage of all death sentences, that's just 1.6 percent. But if the innocence rate is 4.1 percent, more than twice the rate of exoneration, the study suggests what most people assumed but dreaded: An untold number of innocent people have been executed."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ELLONS AND CREAMWoman over a year ago

stourbridge area

If they are 100% guilty ....of the crime .....it doesn't matter the colour of your skin .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

should vecuronium bromide, potassium chloride & midazolam be used in lethal injection even if there use by date has expired?

And do drug companies back these drugs for lethal injection bearing in mind, they like their manufacturer name to be branded for saving life's not taking life's

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Utah, Tennessee and Oklahoma have broadened their abilities to use a firing squad, electric chair or nitrogen gas, as alternatives to lethal injection as they are having problems obtaining the drugs from suppliers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Beware those whos urge to punish others is strong.They are the real enemies of humanity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Beware those whos urge to punish others is strong.They are the real enemies of humanity."

as I said, and asked, - should this barbaric act be removed once and for all

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

It's not for us to decide if the US should do this or not. The same as it's not for is to decide if they should ban guns prevent primary school children from being shot. It's also not for us to decide who they elect as President.

The UK decided that state sanctioned revenge probably wasn't a good thing. I agree with that decision even though it had nothing to do with me. I also don't think it should be brought back.

100% certainty of guilt is an interesting concept.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As a bloke who's dry flip flops have often been used to describe my mouth once said......

"an eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent.

It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable.

It is an abhorrent way for any human to be treated and has no place in a humane society. The state should not take lives on this manner, where it lowers itself to the level of discounting the value of any human life.

Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

I am a reluctant convert from being anti death penalty to pro.

Statistically the annual UK murder rate is the same now as in 1964 when Britain last hanged a murderer at around 400 a year. This is a powerful argument for removal of the death penalty (on the surface). However the statistics are false because the bar has been moved upward on a number of occasions to keep the murder rate constant. Fact is we have even go as far as making a new offence of causing death by dangerous driving (in 1964 all would have been murders) to remove an average of 300 year from the murder figures. The simple truth is using the 1964 definition of murder the murder rate has been climbing steadily since the abolition of the death penalty. We now live in a time where gangs of youths can beat someone to death and rather than all being prosecuted for murder they get charged with manslaughter because they claim they did not mean to do it.

Whenever this subject comes up for debate the most powerful argument for abolishing the death penalty was and is the how many innocents is it acceptable to hang because someone makes a mistake? The answer is always the same: None, and with that single question the argument is over. This I find strange, because if the changes to the legal definition are dialled out then it is clear that the murder rate has at least tripled or maybe quadrupled since 1964. Therefore by saying we will not execute murderers because we do not want to carry the guilt of the state killing an innocent person, but we are quite happy for somewhere between 800 and 1200 people to be killed by criminals who would not have done so in 1964 because of the risk of being hanged for murder.

I would say that the capital punishment debate should be between which causes the most harm having the option of the death penalty and accepting that there are going to be miscarriages of justice where innocents are put to death and not having the death penalty and accepting the cost or 8 to 12 hundred lives annually to save us from the guilt of killing an innocent.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"If they are 100% guilty ....of the crime .....it doesn't matter the colour of your skin ."

You don't think it matters that if a black person and a white person committed the say crime, the black person is more likely to be killed by the state?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

There were over 17,000 recorded murders in the United States in 2016, so clearly a death penalty does not deter.

It's always struck me as perverse - in order to show you that killing someone is wrong we're going to, um, er, kill you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I am a reluctant convert from being anti death penalty to pro.

good comment will, apreciated

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent.

It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable.

Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect."

interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty?

guess that question is open to all

as well as this;

Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"There were over 17,000 recorded murders in the United States in 2016, so clearly a death penalty does not deter.

It's always struck me as perverse - in order to show you that killing someone is wrong we're going to, um, er, kill you.

Again a fact taken without context...

You have to remember when looking at that fact that life expectancy for a young African/American male from the projects is much longer when on death row than when on the streets.

If killing someone increases your life expectancy then the homicide rate will climb. After all we are all wired to do whatever it takes to stay alive.

Context is everything.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent.

It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable.

Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect.

interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty?

guess that question is open to all

as well as this;

Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik

That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"There were over 17,000 recorded murders in the United States in 2016, so clearly a death penalty does not deter.

It's always struck me as perverse - in order to show you that killing someone is wrong we're going to, um, er, kill you.

Again a fact taken without context...

You have to remember when looking at that fact that life expectancy for a young African/American male from the projects is much longer when on death row than when on the streets.

If killing someone increases your life expectancy then the homicide rate will climb. After all we are all wired to do whatever it takes to stay alive.

Context is everything."

are you saying that may be an option for the homeless on our streets?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent.

It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable.

Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect.

interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty?

guess that question is open to all

as well as this;

Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik

That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely "

If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed.

no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

"It's not for us to decide if the US should do this or not. The same as it's not for is to decide if they should ban guns prevent primary school children from being shot. It's also not for us to decide who they elect as President.

The UK decided that state sanctioned revenge probably wasn't a good thing. I agree with that decision even though it had nothing to do with me. I also don't think it should be brought back.

100% certainty of guilt is an interesting concept."

100% certainty of guilt is not a concept it's a reality. Look at the killers of Lee Rigby, caught on camera cctv in the evil act they commitment. There is absolutely no doubt what so ever that they are guilty. I'd gladly see those 2 individuals get the death penalty.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

How about a patriot like Thomas Mair.?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

And Darren Osborne..?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent.

It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable.

Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect.

interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty?

guess that question is open to all

as well as this;

Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik

That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely

If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed.

no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio!"

i have no issue with them being jailed for the rest of their life... so if that had been 175 years as in the larry nassar case where he was sexually abusing women or children... of life plus 1000 years as in the case of Ariel Castro ... i have no issue with that

so in the case of stephen pollock .... if he had been around i would have said lock him up and throw away the keys....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mwstaffsMan over a year ago

brownhills

I look at it in the way of innocent people being executed versus innocent people killed by someone who was released but would have been hanged before abolition , which number would be higher ? And do you value 1 Innocent person more than another

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

The UK decided that state sanctioned revenge probably wasn't a good thing. I agree with that decision even though it had nothing to do with me. I also don't think it should be brought back.

100% certainty of guilt is an interesting concept.

...and if they were mentally deficient? Brainwashed? High on drugs as they appear to have been?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent.

It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable.

Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect.

interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty?

guess that question is open to all

as well as this;

Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik

That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely

If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed.

no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio!"

What is the necessity to kill him?

Why would you need to, rather than wish to?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent.

It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable.

Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect.

interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty?

guess that question is open to all

as well as this;

Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik

That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely

If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed.

no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio!

What is the necessity to kill him?

Why would you need to, rather than wish to?"

Why should they be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? They get a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in each night and 3 meals a day.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What's the difference between a murderer, executioner and a soldier who kills by pressing a button to send death by drone?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

Why should they be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? They get a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in each night and 3 meals a day. "

conversely... what would you say to the family of a person who ended up being found innocent that you would have killed via the death penalty...

lets say.... the birmingham 6.... or the guildford 4

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

Why should they be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? They get a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in each night and 3 meals a day.

conversely... what would you say to the family of a person who ended up being found innocent that you would have killed via the death penalty...

lets say.... the birmingham 6.... or the guildford 4"

We're not talking about cases where there is reasonable doubt. I'm talking about cases like the killers of Lee Rigby where there is no doubt what so ever. I'd tell their families they deserve the death penalty for what they did.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent.

It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable.

Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect.

interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty?

guess that question is open to all

as well as this;

Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik

That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely

If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed.

no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio!

What is the necessity to kill him?

Why would you need to, rather than wish to?

Why should they be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? They get a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in each night and 3 meals a day. "

The NECESSITY to kill them is to save money?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"I am a reluctant convert from being anti death penalty to pro.

Do countries which have and apply the death penalty have higher or lower murder rates than those that don't?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heislanderMan over a year ago

cheshunt

If someone murdered a member of my family I’d happily see them executed. Maybe that makes me a bad person but why should somebody take another persons life and then be allowed back into society.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent.

It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable.

Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect.

interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty?

guess that question is open to all

as well as this;

Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik

That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely

If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed.

no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio!

What is the necessity to kill him?

Why would you need to, rather than wish to?

Why should they be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? They get a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in each night and 3 meals a day.

The NECESSITY to kill them is to save money?"

if it was your money perhaps you would have a different view

No one has mentioned the risk to the guards around them, many locked up for life have nothing to lose and vent anger on security guards & wardens

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

We're not talking about cases where there is reasonable doubt. I'm talking about cases like the killers of Lee Rigby where there is no doubt what so ever. "

If there is reasonable doubt, the defendant is found not guilty.

You can't apply different standards of proving guilt to different punishments. 'he probably did it - life in prison. He definitely did it - death penalty'. That's not how it works.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

Just no death penalty - it's not a deterrent - just like guns and cops don't magically stop crime.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Do countries which have and apply the death penalty have higher or lower murder rates than those that don't?"

Another red herring...

You cannot compare one country (society) to another because by the very nature of societies they differ. You need to compare a societies murder rate pre and post death penalty repeal and use the same baseline for all comparisons.

"Just no death penalty - it's not a deterrent - just like guns and cops don't magically stop crime."

The headline figures do tend to confirm your position. However if you look at the data objectively and use a single baseline to harmonise the numbers then it quickly becomes obvious that just like trickle-down economics the statistics are nothing but an elaborate hoax and confidence trick. Fact is the murder rate has been consistently climbing since 1965 and every few years the government of the day applies an 'adjustment' either by means of instructions to the Crown Prosecution Service (or the DPP as was), secondary legislation, or every 20 years or so primary legislation to return the statistics to the same levels as those in 1964.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

"Fact is the murder rate has been consistently climbing since 1965 and every few years the government of the day applies an 'adjustment' either by means of instructions to the Crown Prosecution Service (or the DPP as was), secondary legislation, or every 20 years or so primary legislation to return the statistics to the same levels as those in 1964."

Correlation is not causation. How can you show that a rise in murder rate is due to the absence of the death penalty?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

There's no correlation between he death penalty and a reduction of murders.You would have to give custodial sentences for a decade or more and see if the murder rate rose significantly.Even that would prove very little.

The death penalty just satisfies those who believe in that form retribution.It says more about the punisher rather than those being punished.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Correlation is not causation. How can you show that a rise in murder rate is due to the absence of the death penalty? "

it is obvious you are speaking from a bias, and that your position is based on your opinion rather than the numbers. Fact is in the year following the British governments announcement that there would be no more hangings for murder there was a 20% rise in the murder rate, then when the death penalty was abolished by Act of Parliament the murder rate nearly doubled! Don't take my word for it, go check the numbers, and while your at it notice the very clear pattern of the numbers rising at a constant rate and then every so often dropping back to the base line round 3 to 4 hundred a year. When you have spotted that pattern then check to see what changes were made directly before that decrease in UK homicide laws...

Then come back and tell me there is no coloration between crime and punishment.

As I said in my first post on this thread I am a reluctant convert from being anti the death penalty to being pro. It seems to me reading posts here that many have not bothered to actually examine the evidence and have formed their opinions on feelings rather than evidence (even if it is circumstantial).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

This all anyone needs to read just the facts .

States without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates. !!

Read up people and educate yourself..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

This all anyone needs to read just the facts .

States without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates. !!

Read up people and educate yourself..

Interesting you take your numbers from a US death penalty abolition pressure group, I take mine from the UK Home Office. You take your numbers at face value because they say what you want them to, I examined the numbers spotted a flaw and then went looking to see if I could find a reason for it.

Wonder which one of us was trained to examine known facts objectively.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Some motherfuckers are just willfully ignorant.The numbers aren't made up..

Populations are from the U.S. Census estimates for each year.

Murder rates are from the FBI's "Crime in the United States" and are per 100,000 population.

The murder rate for the region (death penalty states or non-death penalty states) is the total number of murders in the region divided by the total population (and then multiplied by 100,000)

In calculations that include Kansas and New York, Kansas is counted as a death penalty state from 1994 and New York from 1996, since New York's law did not become effective until September, 1995.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I do look forward to all these numbers being incorrect.Who had a big fucking slice of confirmation bias for breakfast I wonder

Of course some fucking jar head knows better than an organisation that has to get its numbers right or would be called out on bullshiting.It took me a few mins to google this some people are just lazy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Some motherfuckers are just willfully ignorant.The numbers aren't made up..

Populations are from the U.S. Census estimates for each year.

Murder rates are from the FBI's "Crime in the United States" and are per 100,000 population.

The murder rate for the region (death penalty states or non-death penalty states) is the total number of murders in the region divided by the total population (and then multiplied by 100,000)

In calculations that include Kansas and New York, Kansas is counted as a death penalty state from 1994 and New York from 1996, since New York's law did not become effective until September, 1995."

Yep, fully agree. I know nothing about changes to New York or Kansas legislation since 1995/6, somehow I bet you don't either. But I do know about UK murder rates since 1964 and the changes that have been made yo UK law to ensure that those figures have remained fairly constant. I also know that trends in human behaviour are pretty constant around the world. Therefore as I know that UK headline figures reflect those you have quoted I can only assume that the figures you are using to prove your point are as false and vacuous as the the ones produced here.

That you are so tied to the anti death penalty cause that rather than going and checking the official UK figures and changes to UK law as I suggested you do before answering says a lot more about you than me. And before you reply to this you may want to consider the fact that I used to share your opinion until someone pointed out to me what I am pointing out to you. The only difference between us is I went and checked the facts and when I saw the reality I changed my position on the issue.

Try it Bob, you may find it cathartic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Haha we are discussing the USA not the UK .We haven't had the death penalty here for

50 years.Also you've provided nothing, no data to challenge the pages ive offered.All you said is "I know better than you ".

Is that it.?. Really a...Best go down to the pub and drown your ego. You've been called out now jog on..or put up some data that counters the link..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

I believe in capital punishment for murder and I'd put peodos on there aswell

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm reminded of the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Guess what I provided the fucking evidence.Others provided fuck all.

I wonder if i delve in to other extremists claims made by certain individuals regarding African Americans life spans in the projects versus jail and slaves being better off as slaves than free men. I'll find more agenda driven confirmation bias.

Am I seeing a pattern here motherfuckers.Anyhow back to work for me. I see my work here is done.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What's the difference between a murderer, executioner and a soldier who kills by pressing a button to send death by drone?"

Is nobody going to answer this one? How do those who are vehemently opposed to the death penalty justify this? I can understand killing in self-defence during hand-to-hand fighting, but is sending a drone to kill not execution without trial? For the record, in no way am I opposed to what the military do under legal orders and fully support the troops.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

Military act or meant to on rules of engagement as per international laws, one could argue that where after due process a person is executed by the state then that is also a'justifiable' act..

Personally am opposed to it by the state but having said that where I to have been the armed response at the Lee Rigby scene I may have double tapped them as the risk to other innocents and police justified it..

Contradictory I know..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

"Correlation is not causation. How can you show that a rise in murder rate is due to the absence of the death penalty?

Then come back and tell me there is no coloration between crime and punishment.

You haven't read my question properly. Even if I accept correlation is there, you cannot show that an increase in murders is related to the absence of the death penalty, and not one or more of the many other factors involved. You're relying on the assumption that the death penalty is a valid deterrent. This has not been shown.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

I always ask a simple question that no one on the pro death penalty opinion ever answers so hopefully they will this time

What do you tell the family of the person you thought should be executed if they are at a later date found to be innocent?

Ooops

Sorry your relative was collateral damage

My bad....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

Probably something similar to the families of someone who as been butchered by some one who is guilty I'd of thought but for families of innocent victims words don't mean much they probably just want justice

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Do countries which have and apply the death penalty have higher or lower murder rates than those that don't?

Another red herring...

Just no death penalty - it's not a deterrent - just like guns and cops don't magically stop crime.

No, not a red herring at all. It's the actual pertinent question. If the data is difficult to collect or unreliable is another matter.

You haven't really said anything about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent.

The fact that governments massage their crime statistics to look good or that, from your calculations, murder rates are rising does not indicate that the death penalty will improve anything.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"What's the difference between a murderer, executioner and a soldier who kills by pressing a button to send death by drone?

How much of a potential threat is somebody in custody and to how many people compared to somebody at large and with access to weapons etc?

I am not defending extra-judicial killing. It is an horribly grey area. Just responding to your question.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Probably something similar to the families of someone who as been butchered by some one who is guilty I'd of thought but for families of innocent victims words don't mean much they probably just want justice "

That sounds like you dodging a difficult question.

Using your logic, who would be executed so that the innocent person's family could have their "justice"?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 13/02/18 15:20:50]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What's the difference between a murderer, executioner and a soldier who kills by pressing a button to send death by drone?

How much of a potential threat is somebody in custody and to how many people compared to somebody at large and with access to weapons etc?

I am not defending extra-judicial killing. It is an horribly grey area. Just responding to your question."

So the decision to "execute" them is based purely on what they may do next? How about terrorists of various factions spreading their hate in prison which then encourages others to commit atrocities when they are released?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Haha we are discussing the USA not the UK .We haven't had the death penalty here for

50 years.Also you've provided nothing, no data to challenge the pages ive offered.All you said is "I know better than you ".

Is that it.?. Really a...Best go down to the pub and drown your ego. You've been called out now jog on..or put up some data that counters the link..

So I take it you do not think that British people and American people are subject to the same drives and inhibitions...

Which do you consider to be the superior human beings?

Or are you clutching at straws because you visited the Home Office website looked at the figures and realised that there is a correlation between premeditated killing and killing in the course of a crime and the potential punishment?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

Not dodging anything just giving a personal opinion if a member of my family was murdered I'd want the person killed simple as that I dint need data or stats or facts for that it's a personal feeling and if most ppl were realy honest on here they would want the same

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Haha we are discussing the USA not the UK .We haven't had the death penalty here for

50 years.Also you've provided nothing, no data to challenge the pages ive offered.All you said is "I know better than you ".

Is that it.?. Really a...Best go down to the pub and drown your ego. You've been called out now jog on..or put up some data that counters the link..

So I take it you do not think that British people and American people are subject to the same drives and inhibitions...

Which do you consider to be the superior human beings?

What's the title of the thread.?

Still no data! still can't refute the data that proves your talking out your racist arse.!

Apparently we should believe your trained in something. Obviously not trained in searching for data to collaborate your bullshiting..

Put up or shut the fuck up.Your wasting my time now.Im off back to work. I suggest you lick your wounds and jog the fuck on down the boozer...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

It is interesting to read here that the majority view is not to execute, get rid of the death penalty, but then fully accept death by war, one family soldier, with wife and kids at home killing another family soldier with wife and kids at home simply because they are on different sides and their governments instruct them to fight.

seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides.

interesting

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

But I can hopefully say to that family that I hope the killer goes away for a long long time.. I don’t mind that people rot in jail,

So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"It is interesting to read here that the majority view is not to execute, get rid of the death penalty, but then fully accept death by war, one family soldier, with wife and kids at home killing another family soldier with wife and kids at home simply because they are on different sides and their governments instruct them to fight.

seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides.

interesting

Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6...

Convicted killers like the Guildford 4

Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides.

interesting

For a start you've just made up the 'fact' that the majority on here 'fully accept death by war'.

And there are very obvious differences between war and capital punishment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

But I can hopefully say to that family that I hope the killer goes away for a long long time.. I don’t mind that people rot in jail,

So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime?"
corse you don't mind Fabio

Your opposed to the death penalty but I'm not I'd want them

To die painfully if possible but like I said above words don't mean a lot when you have lost someone you love you just want justice I can't understand you being happy for someone who killed someone you loved rotting in jail I'd want them dead but that's just diffrent opinion

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides.

interesting

Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6...

Convicted killers like the Guildford 4

Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings"

No Fabio,

convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children.

are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides.

interesting

Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6...

Convicted killers like the Guildford 4

Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings

No Fabio,

convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children.

are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders"

The reason why I mentioned some of those names was the fact they were convicted of what you would call terrorism or they were convicted of killing children... and later found completely innocent

So you are saying executing an anders brevik is worth the same as killing a sally Clark innocently..

I am saying that is not a price I’d ever be willing to pay

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides.

interesting

Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6...

Convicted killers like the Guildford 4

Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings

No Fabio,

convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children.

are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders

The reason why I mentioned some of those names was the fact they were convicted of what you would call terrorism or they were convicted of killing children... and later found completely innocent

So you are saying executing an anders brevik is worth the same as killing a sally Clark innocently..

I am saying that is not a price I’d ever be willing to pay

When you answer my question Fabio, I will then answer yours in return

so again I ask you;

do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children.

are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

But I can hopefully say to that family that I hope the killer goes away for a long long time.. I don’t mind that people rot in jail,

So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime? corse you don't mind Fabio

Your opposed to the death penalty but I'm not I'd want them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Not dodging anything just giving a personal opinion if a member of my family was murdered I'd want the person killed simple as that I dint need data or stats or facts for that it's a personal feeling and if most ppl were realy honest on here they would want the same "

You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question.

How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice?

It's a very direct question.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question.

How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice?

It's a very direct question."

as far as I could see, there would be no justice, perhaps a payment of compensation but when a loved one, it means nothing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6...

Convicted killers like the Guildford 4

Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings"

I agree with you Fabio, but the other side of the coin is the 400 plus innocents (in the UK) that are murdered annually because their killers know that they will not be killed in turn if they are caught. So the question is which is the more abhorrent, the (UK) state killing 1 or 2 innocents a year (averaged out over time) to save 400+ lives a year, or the state doing a Pilot and allowing 400+ be killed every year so that it does not kill 1 or 2 innocents every year. Of course the USA (which this thread is about) is a lot more violent so the numbers are going to be a lot larger, but the moral conundrum is still the same, and I will not apologise for eventually reaching the conclusion that 400+ lives are more valuable that 1 or 2.

Others are free to reach differing conclusions, but please do not dismiss the statistical evidence in order to justify your choices.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

Nope. You do not know, and cannot prove, that those murders would not have happened if we had the death penalty.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides.

interesting

Interesting and complicated. Unless you think this is a simple matter. Do you?

Why does the state want to kill?

National defence? Can that be extended to anti-terrorist activities outside direct armed conflict? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

"Justice"? Is killing a murderer or mass murder who is in custody nd no longer able to do harm justice or revenge?

In this case, will death make society safer? Will it discourage potential murders or not? Will it make victim's families feel any more content?

Is there a new category of murder necessary for the death penalty? Murder where it's almost certain and murder where it's absolutely certain? Does the second option bring into question the entire judicial process which requires an assumption of innocence and the gathering of sufficient evidence to prove otherwise?

What is an acceptable error rate?

What is the restitution for executing an innocent man?

If execution for murder is appropriate then it should be readily possible to answer these questions.

If not. Don't do it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question.

How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice?

It's a very direct question."
no Fabio did not ask how afamily of an inocent would get justice he said what would you say to a family of an inocent man read what he said before you twist the question and ask me there would never be any justice to the family of an inicent man put to death and no words of comfort

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

But I can hopefully say to that family that I hope the killer goes away for a long long time.. I don’t mind that people rot in jail,

So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime? corse you don't mind Fabio

Your opposed to the death penalty but I'm not I'd want them

There are worse fates than death.Being in isolation year on year getting beaten daily forever.Some prisoners would pray for death as a release from suffering.Sometimes for the next of kin death is to good and quick for those who want justice."
isolation is to stop them getting beat up bob it rarely happens and there's no fate worse than death did you wach Trevor macdonalds on death row they even had cats to play with I'd of given them all a tiger instead

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It should stay and wish they'd bring it back this side of the pond.

The number of people on death row is far to high. If sentenced to death, they should have one year to prove there innocents.

Why should tax payers money pay to keep them alive?

If they are going to be executed anyway why keep them longer and longer for multiple appeals?

One appeal should be allowed, maximum. If that fails straight to the chair you go.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

"It should stay and wish they'd bring it back this side of the pond.

The number of people on death row is far to high. If sentenced to death, they should have one year to prove there innocents.

Why should tax payers money pay to keep them alive?

If they are going to be executed anyway why keep them longer and longer for multiple appeals?

One appeal should be allowed, maximum. If that fails straight to the chair you go."

That would guarantee killing more innocent people. But hey, so long as money is saved...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides.

interesting

Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6...

Convicted killers like the Guildford 4

Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings

No Fabio,

convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children.

are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders

The reason why I mentioned some of those names was the fact they were convicted of what you would call terrorism or they were convicted of killing children... and later found completely innocent

So you are saying executing an anders brevik is worth the same as killing a sally Clark innocently..

I am saying that is not a price I’d ever be willing to pay

When you answer my question Fabio, I will then answer yours in return

so again I ask you;

do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children.

are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders

absolutely no i don't believe he is innoncent... i would happily let him rot in jail!

but i don't believe that killing one innocent person like sally clark or angela cannings for example in mistake is worth killing an anders brevik!

I answered your question first time round... you were just too blinkered to see it...

so now you can answer mine....

is killing innocent people like a sally clark, or an angela canning, or the bridgwater 4 or a stefan kiszko a price worth paying..... for you to execute an anders brevik?

and as with you, the answer to cleaning up the mess of killing an innocent person is to "give them money!!!!"

my.......how magnanimous of you........

see all you people who want the death penalty back, if you are people of conviction... so if there was a mistake i'd expect you people to be the first to offer up your own lives....

after all... "collateral damage" and all that!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Nope. You do not know, and cannot prove, that those murders would not have happened if we had the death penalty.

True, I do not absolutely know, but I can look at the statistics and the things that have changed when there is a significant change in the statistical data and say there is an extremely high probability that if only one thing changes then that must be be the cause of the change. I can further examine the data and note that as punishment is reduced crime increases and say that there is a significant correlation between the 2. I understand that this is purely circumstantial but at some point even the most ardent of the anti capital punishment lobby must admit that there has to be some element of cause and effect.

The shame is hundreds or maybe even thousands have to die over time to save the lives of a hand full of wicked individuals.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

" if only one thing changes then that must be be the cause of the change"

You think that is the only thing that has changed over many decades? Come on, be serious.

There is no evidence to suggest that the death penalty is a proven deterrent.

In fact, in the US, the states without the death penalty have a lower murder rate than those with it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question.

How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice?

It's a very direct question.

no Fabio did not ask how afamily of an inocent would get justice he said what would you say to a family of an inocent man read what he said before you twist the question and ask me there would never be any justice to the family of an inicent man put to death and no words of comfort "

He actually asked this:

"So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime?"

Perhaps you misread it? There's no harm I'm that.

Even if he did ask a different, my question was also equally pertinent.

Is there any reason not to answer? It goes to the heart of any process. What happens when it goes wrong? Are the consequences acceptable?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides.

interesting

Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6...

Convicted killers like the Guildford 4

Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings

No Fabio,

convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children.

are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders

The reason why I mentioned some of those names was the fact they were convicted of what you would call terrorism or they were convicted of killing children... and later found completely innocent

So you are saying executing an anders brevik is worth the same as killing a sally Clark innocently..

I am saying that is not a price I’d ever be willing to pay

When you answer my question Fabio, I will then answer yours in return

so again I ask you;

do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children.

are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders

absolutely no i don't believe he is innoncent... i would happily let him rot in jail!

but i don't believe that killing one innocent person like sally clark or angela cannings for example in mistake is worth killing an anders brevik!

I answered your question first time round... you were just too blinkered to see it...

so now you can answer mine....

is killing innocent people like a sally clark, or an angela canning, or the bridgwater 4 or a stefan kiszko a price worth paying..... for you to execute an anders brevik?

and as with you, the answer to cleaning up the mess of killing an innocent person is to "give them money!!!!"

my.......how magnanimous of you........

see all you people who want the death penalty back, if you are people of conviction... so if there was a mistake i'd expect you people to be the first to offer up your own lives....

after all... "collateral damage" and all that!

Fabio where did I say, or agree that the answer to cleaning up the mess of killing was to give money!

I said this;

as far as I could see, there would be no justice, perhaps a payment of compensation but when a loved one, it means nothing

I said "it mean nothing" what part of that did you not understand.

How much money did your Guildford 4 buddies get in compensation!!!

and as for your question, regarding Sally Clarke, I never mentioned her once and as far as I know, she was innocent, so why would she be convicted with the death penalty? we don't even have the death penalty here.

I mentioned Anders Behring Breivik as an example as this is a clear and shut case with the Children he shot on the island, his car bombings may have been more difficult to convict but the evidence regarding the children he shot was conclusive.

Now go back and read again where I said "as far as I could see, there would be no justice, perhaps a payment of compensation but when a loved one, it means nothing"

It is very easy to see you like to twist words

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Nope. You do not know, and cannot prove, that those murders would not have happened if we had the death penalty.

The shame is hundreds or maybe even thousands have to die over time to save the lives of a hand full of wicked individuals."

Increase in drug abuse and related crime? The high rewards leading to higher violence.

The influence of American gang "culture" through cinema, TV and the internet?

The ubiquity of violent computer games?

The breakdown of stable families and extended families?

Increasing inequality and lack of prospects?

Reducing church attendance?

And...and...and...

Some have no influence on murder rates. Some have a huge influence.

I think that your conclusion is a bit of a stretch.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides.

interesting

Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6...

Convicted killers like the Guildford 4

Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings

No Fabio,

convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children.

are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders

The reason why I mentioned some of those names was the fact they were convicted of what you would call terrorism or they were convicted of killing children... and later found completely innocent

So you are saying executing an anders brevik is worth the same as killing a sally Clark innocently..

I am saying that is not a price I’d ever be willing to pay

When you answer my question Fabio, I will then answer yours in return

so again I ask you;

do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children.

are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders

absolutely no i don't believe he is innoncent... i would happily let him rot in jail!

but i don't believe that killing one innocent person like sally clark or angela cannings for example in mistake is worth killing an anders brevik!

I answered your question first time round... you were just too blinkered to see it...

so now you can answer mine....

is killing innocent people like a sally clark, or an angela canning, or the bridgwater 4 or a stefan kiszko a price worth paying..... for you to execute an anders brevik?

and as with you, the answer to cleaning up the mess of killing an innocent person is to "give them money!!!!"

my.......how magnanimous of you........

see all you people who want the death penalty back, if you are people of conviction... so if there was a mistake i'd expect you people to be the first to offer up your own lives....

after all... "collateral damage" and all that!

Fabio where did I say, or agree that the answer to cleaning up the mess of killing was to give money!

I said this;

as far as I could see, there would be no justice, perhaps a payment of compensation but when a loved one, it means nothing

I said "it mean nothing" what part of that did you not understand.

How much money did your Guildford 4 buddies get in compensation!!!

Now go back and read again where I said "as far as I could see, there would be no justice, perhaps a payment of compensation but when a loved one, it means nothing"

It is very easy to see you like to twist words

see... i answered your question bluntly....

you... you are being a weasel......

so if the original question is and was about the US and the death penalty, so why bring up anders brevik... last time i checked he was not american!

then you went on to criticise the norwegian legal system for giving him 21 years... which is the maximum.... with the proviso they he can be actually kept in longer which you either failed to know, or deliberately left out...

so which was it??? the falsehood or the twisting of the falsehood?

then your "buddy" centaur.... brought up the lee rigby case, which again doesn't involve america or americans......

so i was absolutely within my right to bring up miscarriages of justice from wherever i see fit!!!!

so how about actually answering the question and bluntly as i did yours!

would a death penalty execution of a found innocent years after the fact sally clark, or an angela canning, or a stefan kiszko so you could get your death penalty execution of anders brevik?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question.

How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice?

It's a very direct question.

He actually asked this:

"So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime?"

Perhaps you misread it? There's no harm I'm that.

Even if he did ask a different, my question was also equally pertinent.

Is there any reason not to answer? It goes to the heart of any process. What happens when it goes wrong? Are the consequences acceptable?"
well this is about the death penalty in the USA so it must be acceptable in the states that have it or they would get rid you and Fabio have diffrent opinions on this subject to me and that's fine it's a forum as I said earlier I'd expand it to peodos rapists aswell I consider them all evil crimes and the death penalty is what I would want if any of them crimes were committed against my daughters some may prefer a nice comfy life behind bars 3 meals tv radio table tennis pool tables gym with hope of walking free one day

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" if only one thing changes then that must be be the cause of the change

You think that is the only thing that has changed over many decades? Come on, be serious.

There is no evidence to suggest that the death penalty is a proven deterrent.

In fact, in the US, the states without the death penalty have a lower murder rate than those with it. "

He thinks it's fake data because it doesn't fit his agenda.Some people are just willfully ignorant.Hes already made up his mind that the death penalty reduces the murder rate.When everywhere I look the opposite is true.Much like talking to nazi holocaust deniers youre talking to a brick wall.He has nothing to offer but his intuition that lead him to this conclusion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

actually to expand on the first post...

in the US, Yes there are 31 states that have the "death penalty" as part of their legal system and 19 that don't...

however of those 31 states... 5 states haven't carried out any in the last 10 years ... and a further 8 states at the moment have suspended it for at least the last 3-4 pending reviews....

so at the moment 18 states.... just over 1/3, actievly have the death penalty as part of their legal system

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

"It should stay and wish they'd bring it back this side of the pond.

The number of people on death row is far to high. If sentenced to death, they should have one year to prove there innocents.

Why should tax payers money pay to keep them alive?

If they are going to be executed anyway why keep them longer and longer for multiple appeals?

One appeal should be allowed, maximum. If that fails straight to the chair you go."

Do you actually know the appeals process? Would you prefer the appeals process to be equally as good as the current one? The appeals process is complex and thorough, covering many aspects of the justice system progressively - it engages with different people and is compatible with the US justice system, involving local, state and national aspects: this is the USA.

Inevitably, most sane and reasonable people prefer a system that would not result in the inappropriate taking of an innocent person's life: so the appeals system, after conviction, is an important part of this.

I view all taking of life as against my moral code and don't believe that civilised decent cultures should take lives away. It harms society imo.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question.

How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice?

It's a very direct question.

He actually asked this:

"So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime?"

Perhaps you misread it? There's no harm I'm that.

Even if he did ask a different, my question was also equally pertinent.

Is there any reason not to answer? It goes to the heart of any process. What happens when it goes wrong? Are the consequences acceptable?

well this is about the death penalty in the USA so it must be acceptable in the states that have it or they would get rid you and Fabio have diffrent opinions on this subject to me and that's fine it's a forum as I said earlier I'd expand it to peodos rapists aswell I consider them all evil crimes and the death penalty is what I would want if any of them crimes were committed against my daughters some may prefer a nice comfy life behind bars 3 meals tv radio table tennis pool tables gym with hope of walking free one day "

We haven't got rid of smoking yet. We haven't got rid of motorbikes.

Do you think it would be acceptable to introduce either to the general public today?

Just because something has been in existence for a long time it does not mean that it is a good thing.

I refer you to the fact that Switzerland only gave women the vote in 1971 because online could vote until then.

I'm going to give you the opportunity to ask the same, fundamental questions again;

What is an acceptable rate at which an innocent person is executed?

What form of "justice" will the family of a wrongly executed individual receive?

Telling me what you would want done to someone who hurt your family does not answer either of them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Nope. You do not know, and cannot prove, that those murders would not have happened if we had the death penalty.

The shame is hundreds or maybe even thousands have to die over time to save the lives of a hand full of wicked individuals."

Taking this to an extreme to prove a point, look up "Spurious Correlation". The first hit gives you an interesting selection.

US spending on science and technology vs suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation

Total revenue from arcades viDS computer science doctorates

US crude oil imports from Norway vs number of drivers killed in train collisions