BuffettNews.com

Key Lime Lee wrote:

Four Play wrote:
That's quite a leap. The convicted murderers have already demonstrated the capacity to kill. Given the chance many of them will do it again.

I'd like to see the statistical evidence backing that up.... I think it's quite an assumption to say that because someone has killed once, they will kill again.

Elrod's argument is "Since (killing convicted murderers) would prevent future murders, it's justified."

Mine simply substitues (banning guns)... the logic is the same.

This chart from Oklahoma shows that over a third of the Murder I convicts that have been released, return to prision. I'll look for further information about the nature of the offenses that sent them back.

http://www.doc.state.ok.us/CHARTS/recid ... ime%20Type

Sam wrote:while I do consider Terri's death to be state sponsored because the state ordered her to be starved to death.

Wrong thread Sam.

And besides, the court is merely upholding the decision of Terri's legal guardian (Michael), not making an autonomous request.

Key Lime Lee wrote:one has to weigh the relative benefit to society (the possibility of a handful of less murders) against the cost (in this case, the chances of executing innocent people, the disproportionate application of the death penalty to minorities, and the larger moral issue).

2003 is the most recent data that I've found. There were 1,878 whites, 1,418 blacks and 78 inmates of other races on death row.

Elrod wrote: This chart from Oklahoma shows that over a third of the Murder I convicts that have been released, return to prision. I'll look for further information about the nature of the offenses that sent them back.

http://www.doc.state.ok.us/CHARTS/recid ... ime%20Type

Yeah, if they went back for, say, verbally assaulting a Hari Krishna, it ain't exactly what you're arguing...

And more importantly, evidence that were the sentences properly enforced (ie life in prison) that the results would be the same.

Elrod wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:one has to weigh the relative benefit to society (the possibility of a handful of less murders) against the cost (in this case, the chances of executing innocent people, the disproportionate application of the death penalty to minorities, and the larger moral issue).

2003 is the most recent data that I've found. There were 1,878 whites, 1,418 blacks and 78 inmates of other races on death row.

That doesn't show the application of the death penalty, merely the numbers of folks on death row. You'd have to compare all cases where the death penalty could have been applied versus the cases where it was and then break those down by race.

Key Lime Lee wrote:Yeah, if they went back for, say, verbally assaulting a Hari Krishna, it ain't exactly what you're arguing...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

Sam wrote:while I do consider Terri's death to be state sponsored because the state ordered her to be starved to death.

Wrong thread Sam.

And besides, the court is merely upholding the decision of Terri's legal guardian (Michael), not making an autonomous request.

Lee,
Considering the original start of the thread I do find it appropos.

With all this talk on Terri Schiavo .....I am more concerned on on that friggin' degenerate that killed the 9yr old Lunsford in Florida!


I have a daughter so maybe I'm Biased BUT I think the piece of crap should be SHOT!

I have no problem with KNOWN murderers, rapists, peophiles,and whatnot being executed. I do have a problem of someone being intentionally starved to death that committed no crime. Take one look at Carl Junior Issacs here is a link about him:
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/dea ... acs852.htm

To think, people fought to keep him from being executed and wanted him to be granted clemency... he spent 30 years on death row before justice was served.

There was no question that he did it. He admitted it. He showed no remorse for his part in murdering 6 members of a family. SIX INNOCENT people MURDERED or the multiple rapes of one of the family members.....

Lee, I see a correlation here and some hypocrisy by some ( not all and not saying you ) ...how can people argue/debate the life of someone like Carl Junior Issacs and want to see an innocent person that committed no crimes executed by starvation?


As I said elsewhere I am for the enforcement and use of the death penalty.

I do not see anything wrong with someone that has to employ deadly force to protect, self, family, or property. States do vary the laws of when deadly force is allowed to be used...such as some only allow it to be employed when only a direct or immediate family member is endangered or threatened...I suppose this means your friends or cousins are screwed if you face such a situation that requires deadly force to be used and they are nearby or the person you do not know that is about to be raped...
No I do not think you believe in letting such happen but that is the way of some states.........

Key Lime Lee wrote:one has to weigh the relative benefit to society...against the cost

That's what it boils down to. To me, the perceived benefit outweighs the perceived cost. I guess everyone's scales are different.

Elrod wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:Yeah, if they went back for, say, verbally assaulting a Hari Krishna, it ain't exactly what you're arguing...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.

So you'd favor executing 100 people because one might commit another murder, even though keeping them in jail with no possibility for parole would serve the same purpose?

Key Lime Lee wrote:So you'd favor executing 100 people because one might commit another murder, even though keeping them in jail with no possibility for parole would serve the same purpose?

If all 100 are convicted murderers, absolutely.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

PHBeerman wrote: So I can assume that you would rather an innocent child be raped, and murdered than a career criminal put to death?

It's not a choice between those two scenarios....

When I have a question for you I will preface it with hey Hippie. You know that.

iuparrothead wrote:

PHBeerman wrote:

ejr wrote:agree with IUP and KLL on this one. and remember, it used to always be referred to as "hard time."

Sam, for further examples of wrongful convictions and just how widespread it is, take a look at what is going on in Illinois, and the website that Ann cited earlier dealing with the Northwestern project. It goes on far too often to ever make me comfortable with the idea of the death penalty.

So I can assume that you would rather an innocent child be raped, and murdered than a career criminal put to death?

Troy... come on now.

When I have a question for you I will preface it with hey Bimbo. You know that.

Sam wrote:Lee, I see a correlation here and some hypocrisy by some ( not all and not saying you ) ...how can people argue/debate the life of someone like Carl Junior Issacs and want to see an innocent person that committed no crimes executed by starvation?

Because I would argue that murder is morally wrong.

Letting Terry Schaivo die is morally merciful, not murder. Killing someone in self-defense is morally justified if my own civil liberties are threatened.

But murdering someone when there are equally viable options for keeping that person out of society (and thus unable to harm again) is unethical.

PHBeerman wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

PHBeerman wrote: So I can assume that you would rather an innocent child be raped, and murdered than a career criminal put to death?

It's not a choice between those two scenarios....

When I have a question for you I will preface it with hey Hippie. You know that.

Well, better then "hey dickhead".

Key Lime Lee wrote:

Elrod wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:Yeah, if they went back for, say, verbally assaulting a Hari Krishna, it ain't exactly what you're arguing...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.

So you'd favor executing 100 people because one might commit another murder, even though keeping them in jail with no possibility for parole would serve the same purpose?

Did these 100 people murder someone to get into this position?

Key Lime Lee wrote:

PHBeerman wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

PHBeerman wrote: So I can assume that you would rather an innocent child be raped, and murdered than a career criminal put to death?

It's not a choice between those two scenarios....

When I have a question for you I will preface it with hey Hippie. You know that.

Well, better then "hey dickhead".

I save that moniker for haljakebrad.

Key Lime Lee wrote:The argument states "Executing convicted murderers is justified because it prevents future murders."

Thus things that prevent future murders are justified. So by that argument, banning guns would be justified, and kitchen knives etc.

Not the same.

Murderers chose to commit murder. They have proven that they are capable of taking human life.

Guns, kitchen knives and other objects are tools used to commit murders. A gun or knife is not capable of taking a life unless used by a person to do so.

Elrod wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:The argument states "Executing convicted murderers is justified because it prevents future murders."

Thus things that prevent future murders are justified. So by that argument, banning guns would be justified, and kitchen knives etc.

Not the same.

Murderers chose to commit murder. They have proven that they are capable of taking human life.

Guns, kitchen knives and other objects are tools used to commit murders. A gun or knife is not capable of taking a life unless used by a person to do so.

But banning guns would prevent murders.

Key Lime Lee wrote:But banning guns would prevent murders.

That would take away one of the tools that murderers use.

PHBeerman wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:

PHBeerman wrote:

ejr wrote:agree with IUP and KLL on this one. and remember, it used to always be referred to as "hard time."

Sam, for further examples of wrongful convictions and just how widespread it is, take a look at what is going on in Illinois, and the website that Ann cited earlier dealing with the Northwestern project. It goes on far too often to ever make me comfortable with the idea of the death penalty.

So I can assume that you would rather an innocent child be raped, and murdered than a career criminal put to death?

Troy... come on now.

When I have a question for you I will preface it with hey Bimbo. You know that.

On this issue, I think KLL and iup said just what I would have.

Sam-as for compensation for the wrongfully convicted, I am not sure. I believe they can sue, in civil court, for compensation for the wrongful conviction. Some have good legal counsel (a classmate of mine from high school has represented several in Illinois) but for others they are on their own.

Again, I don't believe in the death penalty in principle, but as one who has witnessed a policeman lying on the witness stand, and who has seen what has happened in this state, I think former Governor Ryan, who was so awful is so many ways, did a courageous thing. These prisoners will not be released, but will not face the prospect of execution. They wil die in prison.