My argument for the death penalty...

[Hopper]

"...planned and effected the escape of their father from prison where he was serving a life sentence for having killed a guard during a previous escape."

Anyone else think it's kinda ironic that these DP abolitionists say one reason that the DP should be abolished is because it's "too expensive?" To "prove" this, among other things they want to cite the extra cost of guarding killers more closely than run-of-the-mill felons. The reasoning here seems to be that if ya give a killer life, then there is no reason to watch him closely, like there would be if ya gave him the DP. Tell the dead family of four in the Tison case that, eh?

Even more ironic in light of the fact that they insist that anyone who wants a more cost efficient appeals system doesn't value human life. Costs only matter if they are incurred to impose the death penalty, but not if they are spent to avoid it, whatever the potential cost in terms of innocent human life may be.

 

[Scat]

Funny thang about a punk, eh, Marcus? Just when everybuddy and they brother is thinkin: "Jeez, could that punk git any more punkier, ya figure? I mean, like, would that even be possible, ya think!?," that's when the punk is tellin his self: "Boy, now they all know how BAD I is, sho nuff!!"

Edit: This post wuz kinda in response to your post, there, eh, Marcus, but now ya done went and deleted most of it. How's come? I thought ya kinda hit the nail on the head, ya know?

He's not worth that much of my energy. There was nothing I had written or said that would make him change, or at least realize that he needs to change, so I just deleted it and went on with my life. My only hope is that this is just an internet persona and he treats those in his "real life" better. Otherwise he's going to end up old, lonely & bitter.

 

[Hopper]

Well, OK, then, Marcus, I can respect that. But looky here: Changin Kicky aint the onliest thang that's worthwhile. Sure, he aint gunna change. Ya can take a boy out of an insecure situation, but ya aint never gunna take the insecurity out of the boy if he aint gotz no gutz. But, even so, there's just some inherent value in callin a punk out, I figure.

 

[Surely]

So kicky and billey, you guys are totally against the death penalty for Ethan Stacy's killers, is that correct? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Gameface]

So kicky and billey, you guys are totally against the death penalty for Ethan Stacy's killers, is that correct? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Well, you didn't address this to me, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway.

I don't trust our current process to issue death penalty sentences at a high enough standard, in general, to give them that power at all.

Would I protest for a second if they are sentenced to death? No. Just like I didn't bat an eye when this Gardner fellow was executed. I have no sympathy for murderers. I do care what kind of society I live in, though. And I'd prefer not to live next door to a guy who gets paid by the state to kill helpless men. I want even less to live in a place where, on occasion, innocent men are put to death in my name, supposedly on my behalf (as part of "the public").

 

[Hopper]

I want even less to live in a place where, on occasion, innocent men are put to death in my name, supposedly on my behalf (as part of "the public").

Ya plannin on movin to France, or some other candyass European country, right soon here, eh, Game? Or are ya already there?

 

[Scat]

I want even less to live in a place where, on occasion, innocent men are put to death in my name, supposedly on my behalf (as part of "the public").

I keep hearing about innocent people being put to death. Since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976, how many innocent men do you think have been put down in Utah?

Here's the list:

Gary Gilmore
Pierre Dale Selby
Arthur Bishop
William Andrews
John Albert Taylor
Joseph Mitchell Parsons
Ronnie Lee Gardner

Every one of the above confessed to their crimes and never claimed to be innocent. They fought against being put down but they were guilty of the crimes that brough the death penalty on them.

 

[Hopper]

Marcus, back in the '70's (or thereabouts) , a couple of commie-*** Columbia professors wrote a "strategy paper" on how to destroy capitalism. Their recommendation was to exploit the humanitarian sentiments of our capitalistic society for that very purpose. One idea was that every citizen who was theoretically entitled, based on the current law, to some form of state-assistance should be encouraged to DEMAND it. At that time, many people looked at welfare as a "last resort," and, out of a sense of personal pride, would seek every other available means of solving their problems before applying for welfare.

Then groups like Acorn began to sprout up, actively seeking out potential welfare recipients and striving to convince them that they should demand that their "right" to welfare be honored. The idea was that since they were "entitled" to welfare assistance, they were therefore morally obliged to "demand" it, for the sake of their families, if not themselves. Most of these advocates were well-intentioned people (perhaps the kind of tools Lenin had in mind when he spoke of "useful idiots") with no ideological agenda to fulfill, and opposition to capitalism wasn't their personal motive for doing the volunteer work. It didn't take that long for the entire system to break down, and NYC declared bankruptcy.

I sense a similiar attitude in the move to abolish the death penalty. Abolitionists insist that every conceivable delay and expensive procedural maneuver to which a confessed murdered is theoretically "entitled" should be demanded. Guilt of the accused is strictly irrelevant to them. They are not encouraging and financing these endless appeals out of concern that the prisoners for whom they act are innocent. It fact, they almost always know otherwise, i.e., that the convict is guilty. Their underlying motivation is simply to destroy "the system," by any means and at virtually any cost.

After making virtually superhuman efforts to foment excessive costs and delays, they argue that the whole process is too cumbersome and expensive to be maintained, and should be abandoned. Like any group of ideologues, they find it very useful and self-satisfying to condemn any opposition to their agenda as "montrous" or "barbaric," too, of course. If you ask the Acorn types, anyone who would question the efficiency of, or point out the waste inherent in, the welfare system wants innocent babies to starve to death. Likewise, any questioning of the tactics of the abolitionists proves that you are, essentially, a barbaric murderer.

 

[VINYLONE]

Well, you didn't address this to me, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway.

I don't trust our current process to issue death penalty sentences at a high enough standard, in general, to give them that power at all.

Would I protest for a second if they are sentenced to death? No. Just like I didn't bat an eye when this Gardner fellow was executed. I have no sympathy for murderers. I do care what kind of society I live in, though. And I'd prefer not to live next door to a guy who gets paid by the state to kill helpless men. I want even less to live in a place where, on occasion, innocent men are put to death in my name, supposedly on my behalf (as part of "the public").

Interesting position. I like this. I'm also going to read some obscure book Kick referenced.

 

[Hopper]

“Preaching is heady wine. It is intoxicating to tell someone just where they get off.”

 

[sirkickyass]

So kicky and billey, you guys are totally against the death penalty for Ethan Stacy's killers, is that correct? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes. I am always against the death penalty. Obviously you feel as though this is some sort of damning admission.

To expand on this point, in about 2001 I remember seeing a poll regarding the popularity of the death penalty. The poll had three options: "Support" "Oppose" and "Oppose except in the case of Timothy McVeigh." Option three had a surprisingly high percentage of the vote. In my mind that's a morally and philosophically bankrupt position. It is the very idea that we can deem certain individuals exceptional to the extent that they no longer have any rights whatsoever, including the right to live, that I object to. Trying to pick out a specific offender as being uniquely deserving of death doesn't chip away at my resolve at all, it strengthens it.

Marcus: Innocence Project estimates that approx. 1/4th of all people they've freed through DNA evidence confessed to the underlying crime at some point. While it may be the case that every person put to death in Utah was in fact guilty, that doesn't change the fact that the death penalty has assuredly been applied to innocent people elsewhere or my personal opposition to the death penalty.

Viny: I would seriously recommend against reading the the Agamben book. It's dull reading. Besides, you can get essays of his for free on the internet in PDF form that are shorter versions of essentially the same arguments.

 

[TroutBum]

Yes. I am always against the death penalty. Obviously you feel as though this is some sort of damning admission.

Not me. I'd fry that sack of dump.

 

[billyshelby]

So kicky and billey, you guys are totally against the death penalty for Ethan Stacy's killers, is that correct? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes.

My turn: When an innocent person is mistakenly put to death as a result of the death penalty, is that an acceptable cost for having it? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Hopper]

If only one convicted killer is given life and later escapes from prison due, in part, to the less restrictive supervision of general population inmates versus those given the death penalty, and then kills a family of 4, including a two-year old child, because he wants their car, is that an acceptable cost for not giving him the DP in the first place?

I love simple games. The more simple, the more better!

Edit: Wait, I forgot: Yes or no?

 

[Hopper]

If I recall correctly, California claims to spend about $125,000 per year, per inmate, to keep prisoners on death row. They then compute the total costs of confinement by assuming that every death row inmate will live his entire natural life in prison--it adds up fast, I tellya what! That's a lotta money, sho nuff! Most honest, hard-workin citizens with families don't even begin to make $125,000/year, but we're spending all that to make sure death row inmates are safe and comfortable!?

The DP abolitionists claim that the best solution is to quit handing out the death penalty and just forego the extra supervision given to especially dangerous killers.

Others claim the best practical solution is to quit giving killers 20-30 years worth of appeal rights, and cut the subsidizin of killers short.

There could be other ways to address the problem, I spoze, but they would probably be, like, complicated, or sumthin, ya know?

 

[billyshelby]

If only one convicted killer is given life and later escapes from prison due, in part, to the less restrictive supervision of general population inmates versus those given the death penalty, and then kills a family of 4, including a two-year old child, because he wants their car, is that an acceptable cost for not giving him the DP in the first place?

I love simple games. The more simple, the more better!

Edit: Wait, I forgot: Yes or no?

What a shock. aint employing disingenuous logic to obfuscate an argument. I never saw this coming.

 

[Surely]

No.

I don't think the death penalty should be loosely used. However, when there is no doubt as to whether or not the convicted guy is guilty or not, then by all means fire away. I cannot believe that someone would defend what those monsters did to that little boy. I really get a kick out of the fact that generally, those who oppose the death penalty are the same ones who support abortion (but that should probably be its own thread).

 

[sirkickyass]

I cannot believe that someone would defend what those monsters did to that little boy.

I don't think anyone is defending the act of murder. The point is whether the state should be in the business of killing as punishment. There's a pretty big difference between saying someone shouldn't die and saying what they did was ok.

I really get a kick out of the fact that generally, those who oppose the death penalty are the same ones who support abortion (but that should probably be its own thread).

I really get a kick out of the fact that generally, those who support the death penalty are the same ones who style themselves pro-life (but that should probably be its own thread).

See what I did there?

 

[Hopper]

Just as it's possible to make a mistake when doling out the death penalty, it's possible to make a mistake by not smokin a guy when ya have the chance. Quite apart from the judicial system, history is full of examples where a person generously spares another's life, only to have that very same person kill him, someone close to him, or some other innocent person(s).

If ya wanna follow the abolitionist's logic, then the implication would be that, since you can make a mistake by not puttin someone to death, you should put everyone to death.

 

[Hopper]

A few weeks back I was out to Red's Road House. As often happens, some punk attacked another guy from behind by breakin a chair over his head, knockin him to the ground. Then the punk jumped on top of him and hit him in the head with his fists 20-30 times, alternatin between prouds grins at, and sneering looks at, the crowd while doin it.

Finally the guy kinda come to his senses, and flipped the punk on his back. Just as he was raisin his fist to start poundin his sorry face, the punk yells: "You got it, man. You win. I give up. I'm sorry." I guess because he was still kinda stunned, instead of hittin the punk, the guy just got up and started headin for the door. He got about halfway there before the punk broke another chair over his head.