What's new
By:

My argument for the death penalty...

billyshelby said:
In this construct, it means lesser of evils.
Click to expand...

So, you're gunna re-assert that it aint worse than death, eh? Now I repeat my claim, it is worse than death. Then it kinda goes like this here for a good long spell:

You: Naw, it aint.

Me: Yeah, it is

Y: aint

M: is

Y: aint

M: is

Y: You're an idiot.
 
Lemme ax ya this here, like I done axxed Eric, eh, Biley? Is the possibility of a (eventually irrevokable and uncorrectable) mistake your only real objection to the DP? Would you approve of the sentence if you personally knew the guy was guilty?
 
Last edited:
I just watched Gardner's relatives say that they are glad it's over because now "he can go home" rather than being locked up for life. Kind of echos what Hopper was saying earlier.
 
I guess I should autta know more better than to even ax, eh, Biley? After all, ya done said:

billyshelby said:
You are an idiot I'm not getting into wordplay with you. And I'm not dancing around on any Socratic plains.
Click to expand...

That's cool, you're perfectly within your rights to simply pronounce, for the enlightment of all, what is "acceptable" and leave it at that. Well, ya can't really leave it at that, I spoze, cause ya need to hang around, takin potshots at anyone who doesn't immediately accept your pontifications as indisputable, let the world know that anyone who doesn't share your values or doesn't accept the soundness/validity of your logic, is an "idiot," and that kinda stuff, but, still..
 
Hopper said:
Lemme ax ya this here, like I done axxed Eric, eh, Biley? Is the possibility of a (eventually irrevokable and uncorrectable) mistake your only real objection to the DP? Would you approve of the sentence if you personally knew the guy was guilty?
Click to expand...

No. Barbarism does not justify barbarism.
 
One adverse side effect of simply flatly abolishing the "ultimate" penalty, presumably death, is that there is a trickle down effect which then cheapens all other conceivable punishments. The old "ultimate" penalty is simply replaced by a new one--let's say it's life in prison.

Now the abolute worst ya ever possibily can git, thanks to the generousity of well-intentioned do-gooders, is life. Who's gunna cop a plea to that? Not nobuddy, that's who.

20 years, with the possibility of parole in 7 mebbe. Mebbe 25 years, mebbe, but, I dunno...30 years, hell ya might as well ask for life if ya want that. But life!? Hell, no! If you want that kinda penalty you're gunna hafta try me. I aint gunna "agree" to the worst I could possibly get anyway.
 
Our system simply does not have the resources to make it possible to try every case. Prosecutors must, like it or not, rely primarily on plea bargains to obtain convictions.
 
Hopper said:
I guess I should autta know more better than to even ax, eh, Biley? After all, ya done said:



That's cool, you're perfectly within your rights to simply pronounce, for the enlightment of all, what is "acceptable" and leave it at that. Well, ya can't really leave it at that, I spoze, cause ya need to hang around, takin potshots at anyone who doesn't immediately accept your pontifications as indisputable, let the world know that anyone who doesn't share your values or doesn't accept the soundness/validity of your logic, is an "idiot," and that kinda stuff, but, still..
Click to expand...

Maybe if you didn't make it so easy I wouldn't take potshots at you. Love how you hypocritically claim the moral high ground in the process of condemning me for allegedly claiming it. Anyway, you do have the alternative of simply stating your position clearly rather than all the smoke and mirrors which, of course, you'll never do. On the flip side, I do enjoy watching you make an idiot of yourself so I'll get something out of it.
 
billyshelby said:
No. Barbarism does not justify barbarism.
Click to expand...

Hmm, with all the page-flippin here, I missed this. Didn't think ya wuz gunna answer. OK, at least now you've put your "real" objection on the table, rather than leadin people to possibly believe it's really only sumthin else.

"Barbarism," eh?

Well, who could possibly argue with that, I wonder? Nobuddy wants to be no uncivilized "barbarian," I betcha.
 
So, what you're really sayin in this here, eh, Biley?

1. We would never want to wrongly sentence any person to death.
2. But, ultimately, guilt or innocence isn't even the determining factor. No matter how certain you are that a perp is guilty, no matter how despicable his crimes, under NO circumstances whatsoever should any perp EVER be sentenced to death. It would be "barbaric."

That's a very lofty and praiseworthy moral position to take, no doubt. And it has the advantage of simply dismissing any pragmatic concerns as "irrelevant."
 
Hopper said:
So, what you're really sayin in this here, eh, Biley?

1. We would never want to wrongly sentence any person to death.
2. But, ultimately, guilt or innocence isn't even the determining factor. No matter how certain you are that a perp is guilty, no matter how despicable his crimes, under NO circumstances whatsoever should any perp EVER be sentenced to death. It would be "barbaric."



That's a very lofty and praiseworthy moral position to take, no doubt. And it has the advantage of simply dismissing any pragmatic concerns as "irrelevant."
Click to expand...

Well, I can GUARANTEE YOU 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, that Ronnie Gardner committed murder. Unless, of course, you want to say people don't kill people, guns do.

RIP, Ronnie G. And I hope Melvyn Otterstrom, Michael Burdell and Nick Kirk were there to meet him in the afterlife. He essentially killed 3 people (Kirk had little quality of life after being wounded).

Is the firing squad a brutal way to go? Perhaps. But Gardner CHOSE that method. And it was no more brutal than the way Otterstron and Burdell died.

So end this bull #!%& about the rights of the convicted murderer. Gardner was given the right to a fair trial. IMO, the scumbag should have been executed within a week. I mean it wasn't like the police had to investigate and use circumstancial evidence. He shot and killed an attorney in front of dozens of eyewitnesses.

Oh yeah, and please note, mods, I meant to say "crap" back there. So I'm defintely NOT circumventing the profanity filter.
 
GlassEater said:
Well, I can GUARANTEE YOU 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, that Ronnie Gardner committed murder. Unless, of course, you want to say people don't kill people, guns do.

RIP, Ronnie G. And I hope Melvyn Otterstrom, Michael Burdell and Nick Kirk were there to meet him in the afterlife. He essentially killed 3 people (Kirk had little quality of life after being wounded).

Is the firing squad a brutal way to go? Perhaps. But Gardner CHOSE that method. And it was no more brutal than the way Otterstron and Burdell died.

So end this bull #!%& about the rights of the convicted murderer. Gardner was given the right to a fair trial. IMO, the scumbag should have been executed within a week. I mean it wasn't like the police had to investigate and use circumstancial evidence. He shot and killed an attorney in front of dozens of eyewitnesses.

Oh yeah, and please note, mods, I meant to say "crap" back there. So I'm defintely NOT circumventing the profanity filter.
Click to expand...

Rep increased for truth and awesomeness!!
 
Who the hell cares? You bleedin hearts never cease to amaze me.

I say we bring back stonin, burnin at the stake, and seeing if them witches can swim!
 
Did anyone else notice the irony that Rocky Anderson and the protestors cited the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as they protested the execution. I got a passage for you Rocky, Genesis 9:6. ""Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
 
Hopper said:
Hmm, with all the page-flippin here, I missed this. Didn't think ya wuz gunna answer. OK, at least now you've put your "real" objection on the table, rather than leadin people to possibly believe it's really only sumthin else.

"Barbarism," eh?

Well, who could possibly argue with that, I wonder? Nobuddy wants to be no uncivilized "barbarian," I betcha.
Click to expand...

You're so easy. What does barbarism mean, aint? You love word games, right? We all know the connotation of the word barbarism. It means something like terrible, awful things someone does to someone else. Like what the murderers given the death penalty are accused of, and most of whom are very likely guilty of. But by my definition, it could also mean a government apparatus that condemns killing but reserves the right to kill itself under 'justifiable circumstances.' I don't get, and will never get, the message that sends. Why can my government kill justifiably, but I can't?

It's just as easy to lock the guilty up for life, give them their obligatory rights to proclaim their innocence, and let the chips fall where they may. That's the morality angle. Sure it's 'barbaric' that someone innocent of a crime would get locked up for life. But practicality says the line has to be drawn somewhere. Mistakes will get made, but there is a very easy way to avoid being affirmatively barbaric, and passively barbaric. If someone is put to death prior to being found innocent, that's truly barbaric. If someone is found innocent after being put to death in a system that at least tried to give them every opportunity to prove their innocence, that's a tragedy. Very important distinction.
 
Hopper said:
One adverse side effect of simply flatly abolishing the "ultimate" penalty, presumably death, is that there is a trickle down effect which then cheapens all other conceivable punishments. The old "ultimate" penalty is simply replaced by a new one--let's say it's life in prison.

Now the abolute worst ya ever possibily can git, thanks to the generousity of well-intentioned do-gooders, is life. Who's gunna cop a plea to that? Not nobuddy, that's who.

20 years, with the possibility of parole in 7 mebbe. Mebbe 25 years, mebbe, but, I dunno...30 years, hell ya might as well ask for life if ya want that. But life!? Hell, no! If you want that kinda penalty you're gunna hafta try me. I aint gunna "agree" to the worst I could possibly get anyway.
Click to expand...

All sorts of assumptions, but that's irrelevant since it completely misses the point. What does it matter if every single accused murderer goes to trial? That's the way the system is supposed to work. Isn't that a sunk cost of collectively joining into a society, the presumption that any person who needs to go to trial will have the means to do so? And in the case of every state that currently has the death penalty, they'd save tons of money if they didn't have the death penalty option and EVERY accused criminal went to trial. Once again, you refuse to actually read the studies of links YOU provided to this effect. The assumption I could make would be that the money saved NOT pursuing the death penalty would help to assure more comprehensive representation, but I won't go there.

Incidentally, great argument about how life without parole somehow 'cheapens' alternatives. In other posts, you want to claim that life without parole might be worse than death, but when it serves your argument, it cheapens sentences. It's like you make it up as you go along.

So the end result is we have a system where the end result is life without parole. That's pretty scary no matter how you try to belittle it. And the best part is if every single person not afraid of the death penalty decides to roll the dice on a trial, we'll still have more resources to offer them, states will save money,
 
And in the case of every state that currently has the death penalty, they'd save tons of money if they didn't have the death penalty option and EVERY accused criminal went to trial.
Click to expand...
Prove it, Poindexter.

What does it matter if every single accused murderer goes to trial? That's the way the system is supposed to work.
Click to expand...

Proving my point that pragmatic concerns are irrelevant to single-issue zealots. No, it's not supposed to work that way, and if people "supposed" it did, then they would long ago have been cuttin back real hard on schools, roads, and that kinda crap and poured it into the budget for the judicial system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top