namelesstavern.net

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165626/death ... years.aspx

As someone avidly opposed to the death penalty, this makes me feel better about our society.

Exact opposite from me.

Something else we agree on, Lyion.

.

Tikker wrote:i am actually hugely in favour of death penalty for those that are not rehabitable

i am hugely in favour of castration for serial sex offenders

i think we do a terrible job of culling the human race

Wholy agree. People that we keep in jail for a lifetime and cost us 100k a year to sustain would be better off executed and the money used to help with the failed education system so we don't produce new criminals.

Rapists should be turned to eunuch after the first offence. Peeing through the straw seems like a fair detterent to future offenders

except 100s of people every year are falsely accused and convicted, and the idea of the government having the go ahead power of chopping cocks off and murdering is unsettling to me.

.

Ganzo wrote:

Tikker wrote:i am actually hugely in favour of death penalty for those that are not rehabitable

i am hugely in favour of castration for serial sex offenders

i think we do a terrible job of culling the human race

Wholy agree. People that we keep in jail for a lifetime and cost us 100k a year to sustain would be better off executed and the money used to help with the failed education system so we don't produce new criminals.

Rapists should be turned to eunuch after the first offence. Peeing through the straw seems like a fair detterent to future offenders

1. it's more like 45k/yr
2. death penalty does not deter
3. a much better way to save money on incarceration to fix education would be to legalize+tax weed
4. irreversible punishment delivered by a flawed system is completely unacceptable

Tikker wrote:long story short, for certain crimes the criminal was essentially sterilized, as well as all his direct family. idea being that whatever abnormal genetic code was causing the issues would not be passed down to future generations

christ that's a terrifying thought, don't be giving the powers that be ideas tikker.

Hooray. This remains the one political area in which I'm still fully involved. I'm proud to be a 17 years vet of Amnesty International. Y'all can argue religion gun control, marijuana, education, healthcare, abortion, national debt, or pretty much whatever you want, and I'll usually let it slide off of my back. Just ten years ago, most of those would have riled me up. However, I've never let the topic of the death penalty go. Texas' cavalier attitude to the butchering of its citizens, even foreign nationals, was a huge factor in my decision to leave. Likewise, Oregon's Governor John Kitzhaber's moratorium on all death penalties pushed me towards my new home.

The tide is turning and I couldn't be happier. Since I've moved, both Connecticut and Maryland have abolished it. More are on the way.

No human system of justice can be perfect.

Imperfections in the justice system means that innocent people WILL be convicted of crimes they did not commit, including capital crimes.

This means that every year some certain number of people that get put on death row are completely innocent of the crime for which they have been sentenced to death.

Therefore, if the death penalty is legal, the state WILL kill completely innocent people.


Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I think it tends to be a Bad Thing if governments get to up and kill their citizens who are innocent of any crimes, even leaving aside the pain and suffering those innocent people go through. You death penalty supporters, what is your take on this? What ratio of the executed that are actually innocent are you willing to tolerate? 1 in a million? 1 in 100? what?

Oh, and wow, Tikker, that is TRULY frightening. I know what we could do instead! Criminals condemned to death go to the Thunderdome instead! 2 men enter, 1 man leaves! Have 2 death row criminals get put into the arena, whichever one survives wins life without parole, the other one is, well, dead. Think of the ratings! Think of the pay per view income stream! Riiiiight.....

-Arlos

Even if the judicial system could get it 100% right (impossible) I think I'd still be against it. It just seems like a barbaric system, and a system of justice be so vengeful. Even if the punishment fits the crime in most people's estimation, shouldn't the government be above that? Shouldn't we, as a society be above an eye for eye?

We caught them. They aren't going anywhere. Likely won't hurt anyone anymore. No need gratifying the public’s bloodlust by killing them.

Also, all the other stuff about innocent people dying.

Tuggan wrote:except 100s of people every year are falsely accused and convicted, and the idea of the government having the go ahead power of chopping cocks off and murdering is unsettling to me.

this.

and i know they're not necessarily connected, per se, but what gets me is that there are people who are totally OK with giving the govt the power to kill and castrate people but adamantly against letting the govt run healthcare. if you don't trust your govt to handle healthcare or don't want them to have that much power, how on earth is it acceptable to let that same govt literally have control over life and death? seems counterintuitive. but i guess it's the same rationale that applies to "keep the govt out of my healthcare! unless it's abortion- or contraception-related; then they can step in all they want."

sorry, that's ranty and unrelated. it just seems ridiculous to me the kinds of things that people are OK with letting the govt interfere into, but then demand that it stay out of others.

leah wrote:[...] there are people who are totally OK with giving the govt the power to kill and castrate people but adamantly against letting the govt run healthcare. if you don't trust your govt to handle healthcare or don't want them to have that much power, how on earth is it acceptable to let that same govt literally have control over life and death?

I think that is a great point, and I don't think it's unrelated at all.

leah wrote:

Tuggan wrote:except 100s of people every year are falsely accused and convicted, and the idea of the government having the go ahead power of chopping cocks off and murdering is unsettling to me.

this.

and i know they're not necessarily connected, per se, but what gets me is that there are people who are totally OK with giving the govt the power to kill and castrate people but adamantly against letting the govt run healthcare. if you don't trust your govt to handle healthcare or don't want them to have that much power, how on earth is it acceptable to let that same govt literally have control over life and death? seems counterintuitive. but i guess it's the same rationale that applies to "keep the govt out of my healthcare! unless it's abortion- or contraception-related; then they can step in all they want."

sorry, that's ranty and unrelated. it just seems ridiculous to me the kinds of things that people are OK with letting the govt interfere into, but then demand that it stay out of others.

I'm actually in favor of government ran health care. I have a weird political views' I'm a conservative yet socialist. I think healthcare, education, retirement all should be free and available for everyone, managed by government and paid by taxes. At the same time I believe in death penalty not as a deterrent but as a punishment and a cleansing, I believe in right to own guns, and the right to go to a private doctor or school and pay out of pocket if I choose to. I also believe in legalizing all drugs, flat tax and fair electoral process.

we have more in common than i thought, ganz!

i just can't get behind the death penalty, though. if there's even the tiniest possibility, like 0.00001%, that someone is actually innocent... well, i just can't agree with it.

leah wrote:i guess it's the same rationale that applies to "keep the govt out of my healthcare! unless it's abortion- or contraception-related; then they can step in all they want."

sorry, that's ranty and unrelated. it just seems ridiculous to me the kinds of things that people are OK with letting the govt interfere into, but then demand that it stay out of others.

No, there is a very simple line between protecting what we deem unborn life and government over reach. What is a paradox is how many people are against the death penalty but fine with killing viable babies for any reason what so ever in the name of womens 'freedom'. It's mind blowing to me, just like those who are so avidly pro life but so pro death penalty.

For the record, I'm for a single payer health care system as well as education and retirement being managed by a central entity: A state. I'm against this being run at the Federal level due to the egregious over reach of power done by our national government already. Every decade DC gets more and more powerful, and the states less so which is exactly the opposite of how the U.S. should be run.

The Death Penalty has no place in civilized society. If they are that bad, lock them up and throw away the key. Old Testament justice has no place in civilization.

Lyion wrote:If they are that bad, lock them up and throw away the key. Old Testament justice has no place in civilization.

Why do we need to pay for room and food and guards for these people. If killing is so bad lets do the "Escape from NY/LA" type of thing.

Also Old Testament justice is not meant to be read as a code of laws, and was never ever used as such.

I vote for starting on the wall for Detroit today.

Old testament is pretty clear in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, which was my meaning. It may still exist in Sharia countries with their set of morals and it certainly is a deterrent but so were the gallows. In my opinion these have no place in modern civilization.

I'll find middle ground for abortion <keep it legal under 10 weeks, absolutely forbidden without serious medical reasons after>, drugs <legal based on state laws>, marriage <I believe marriage is a religious sacrament and has no business in government at all, if any two people want to call themselves married, so be it and any two people should be eligible for the same rights as any others> but I find zero middle ground with the death penalty.

Lyion wrote:I vote for starting on the wall for Detroit today.

Seconded

.

Bear in mind that a lot of people in the military are there because they're degenerates and couldn't make it through education and into the corporate world. By no means all of them or even a majority, but not everyone that goes in is Rambo with a death wish to blast bitches. They just have no other option in their life. So I get why they'd have vast differences in views.

@Lyion, IMO the difference in pro life vs death penalty is that the unborn baby has 100% never done anything to deserve being put to death whereas the death row mass murderer has already played his/her cards.

One is a person. The other isn't.

Zanchief wrote:One is a person. The other isn't.

Agreed, criminal scum is not a person, and unborn child is.

I was speaking factually.