billyshelby
Well-Known Member
I owe you an apology here. I checked out this organization and they're legit. I don't agree with their ideology, of course, but they're fighting their fight.
My argument for the death penalty...
- Thread starter prodigy
- Start date
I owe you an apology here. I checked out this organization and they're legit. I don't agree with their ideology, of course, but they're fighting their fight.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
You should actually read the study (studies). The first one you linked references the second one you linked.
The first claims the death penalty will "probably" result in more cases going to trial. It acknowledges the limitations of its own study--a single year, decades ago, in a small sample. It is primarily concerned with the monetary implications of the death penalty, and concedes that 'more research' has to be done regarding costs. Multiple studies have provided this research, but naturally they disagree.
The second (relative to New York) is stronger, or at least more comprehensive. It states there is no correlation between the death penalty and cases going to trial. To oversimplify, its position is that the death penalty increases the DA's bargaining position relative to terms, ie. more defendants being tried on their original charges as opposed to lesser charges to whatever degree.
We're splitting hairs here, anyway. Plea bargaining power is one of the tinier components of the argument on either side. I wouldn't care if it cost eleventy billion dollars to try every case. There are sunk costs in life. The cost of housing inmates, or paying for their trials, is one of them. We're not trying to build the most cost effective justice system. We're trying to build the fairest. If we can make fair more cost effective, great. (Cue the tired refrain about how innocent people locked up for life isn't fair.)
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
To the charge of malice, I plead innocent, except as it relates to your position.
To the charge of slander, I plead guilty. I'm also countersuing for your very hurtful, immensely painful desecration of my name. My lawyer's attorney will be in contact with your public defender.
To the charge of mental incompetence I plead very guilty. This whole thread is like quicksand and I'm sure that on page 4,942 I will have ordered my first pitchfork. By page 5,973, I hope to have attended my first execution. And by page 6,237, my dream is I will have used that pitchfork to stab the dead head of a very guilty person. All in the name of justice.
I wasn't sure how I would plea on the charge of insecurity. But having given it a lot of thought, to say nothing of hours really looking at myself in the mirror, I'll plead guilty to that, too. Deep down, I want to be more like you. So can you recommend a good cartoon character I can start posting as? Thanks in advance, your pal billyshelby.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
The increased costs of the death penalty are primarily legal. A death penalty case involves several additional phases that an ordinary case doesn't (even an LWOP case.) It requires additional lawyers who don't work for free. At the prison level, death row requires more security (ratios of guard to prisoner are going to be higher on death row than for the general population, as just one component.)
A more thorough explanation can be found here: https://www.ccfaj.org/index.html (click the 'click here' link and refer to page 154 of the report. If you're so inclined, that entire section is pretty interesting.)
More thorough examinations of costs in several other states can be found on the link that aint so graciously provided: https://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Hopper
Banned
All right, Billy....I feel you have made at least a semi-sincere attempt to "clear the air," here so I'll respond forthrightly. I won't promise to ever make any this type of response to you again, because that will depend. For now I will just direct a few comments your way, and you can take them any way you want.
1. I will give you credit for being man enough to admit your mistake. That has to be especially difficult for you in light of your repeated self-congratulatory, sneering ridicule of a credible source and the implied pretense to superior knowledge you exhibited with such posts as this:
2. In my book, an honest mistake requires no apology. This was not an honest mistake. But, as far as that goes, I'm not looking for any kind of apology to begin with, no matter how dishonest your behavior may be. Say what you want to say in whatever disingenuous manner you choose, I don't care. You won't "hurt my feelings," and will never see me ask for an apology. You may lose all my respect, and may invite less than courteous responses, but if you want to pick a fight and make it ongoing, help yourself.
3. In my experience you have virtually no tolerance for opinions other than your own, whether the topic is Sloan's value as a coach, the value of any particular player, the morality of the death penalty, or whatever it is. It's probably not the mere difference of opinion that disturbs you, really; it's someone questioning the soundness of your "judgment" (opinions) that seems likely to get you started on a defensive, no-holds-barred counter-attack on the character of your "assailant."
4. Your counter-attacks often quickly degenerate to the level of a 3rd grader arguing on a playground. I don't find this to be the least bit enlightening, although the mere sport and humor of it can perhaps be entertaining. Your particular specialities seem to be (1) telling everyone else what someone else "means," as though people can't read and understand for themselves and then (2) telling them what they should think about what that person "means" (according to your distorted presentation). I just have a natural dislike for this kind of presumptuous, pretentious pomposity, I guess. Especially when it is done with no particular regard for honesty but simply for the purpose of seeking allies to support you and join "your side" so that you can enhance your sense of being "right." It all seems quite weak to me, I'm afraid, and does not engender my respect.
5. I won't try to speak for others, because not everyone feels the same on such matters, but, if it's what you prefer to do, then by all means try to attack, ridicule, and demean me at every opportunity you think you see. I won't ever complain to any mod or anyone else. On the other hand, to the extent I don't ignore you completely, I won't treat you respectfully, either, because I am virtually incapable of pretending to respect what I don't in fact respect. I certainly won't dignify your behavior with sincere, serious attempts to "persuade" you that you could be mistaken.
Again, I say all this simply because I believe in calling a spade a spade, at least on matters of substance. Just as I feel you are entitled to your opinions, I believe I'm entitled to mine, whether we agree or not. I normally don't make any particular attempts to make sure people "understand" me or to make sure they don't "misunderstand" me. But if you're somehow trying to come to some mutual understanding, and are trying to decide if I'm a natural enemy of yours which you are bound, by conscience, to oppose, we can discuss it. If you already have all the "understanding" you need about that, that's fine too.
1. I will give you credit for being man enough to admit your mistake. That has to be especially difficult for you in light of your repeated self-congratulatory, sneering ridicule of a credible source and the implied pretense to superior knowledge you exhibited with such posts as this:
2. In my book, an honest mistake requires no apology. This was not an honest mistake. But, as far as that goes, I'm not looking for any kind of apology to begin with, no matter how dishonest your behavior may be. Say what you want to say in whatever disingenuous manner you choose, I don't care. You won't "hurt my feelings," and will never see me ask for an apology. You may lose all my respect, and may invite less than courteous responses, but if you want to pick a fight and make it ongoing, help yourself.
3. In my experience you have virtually no tolerance for opinions other than your own, whether the topic is Sloan's value as a coach, the value of any particular player, the morality of the death penalty, or whatever it is. It's probably not the mere difference of opinion that disturbs you, really; it's someone questioning the soundness of your "judgment" (opinions) that seems likely to get you started on a defensive, no-holds-barred counter-attack on the character of your "assailant."
4. Your counter-attacks often quickly degenerate to the level of a 3rd grader arguing on a playground. I don't find this to be the least bit enlightening, although the mere sport and humor of it can perhaps be entertaining. Your particular specialities seem to be (1) telling everyone else what someone else "means," as though people can't read and understand for themselves and then (2) telling them what they should think about what that person "means" (according to your distorted presentation). I just have a natural dislike for this kind of presumptuous, pretentious pomposity, I guess. Especially when it is done with no particular regard for honesty but simply for the purpose of seeking allies to support you and join "your side" so that you can enhance your sense of being "right." It all seems quite weak to me, I'm afraid, and does not engender my respect.
5. I won't try to speak for others, because not everyone feels the same on such matters, but, if it's what you prefer to do, then by all means try to attack, ridicule, and demean me at every opportunity you think you see. I won't ever complain to any mod or anyone else. On the other hand, to the extent I don't ignore you completely, I won't treat you respectfully, either, because I am virtually incapable of pretending to respect what I don't in fact respect. I certainly won't dignify your behavior with sincere, serious attempts to "persuade" you that you could be mistaken.
Again, I say all this simply because I believe in calling a spade a spade, at least on matters of substance. Just as I feel you are entitled to your opinions, I believe I'm entitled to mine, whether we agree or not. I normally don't make any particular attempts to make sure people "understand" me or to make sure they don't "misunderstand" me. But if you're somehow trying to come to some mutual understanding, and are trying to decide if I'm a natural enemy of yours which you are bound, by conscience, to oppose, we can discuss it. If you already have all the "understanding" you need about that, that's fine too.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
For Mo: Mo if you're still payin any attention to this thread, let me address your earlier observation, since "clearing the air" is my current agenda.
The implication of your comment did not really go over my head. Clearly you were sayin:
1. That I simply talk out of my ***, and/or
2. That I simply am an ***, and no more, and, implicitly
3. That you disapprove of, if not sternly condemn, me, my behavior, my attitude, my manners and/or some other aspect of my presence here.
By pretending like I didn't know what you meant, I was simply inviting you, as I have in the past, to elaborate and directly express your true thoughts/feelings about something you think is objectionable. There is no requirement that you do this, of course, and you generally appear to be a person who wishes to avoid confrontation, which is fine, if that's what you prefer. Personally, if I really have strong feelings about something, I prefer to directly address the issue, but that's just me, I spoze.
The invitation is open. If there is something about me that's bothering you, feel free to express it to me directly. If you want me to "change," there's no guarantee you will get what you want in that respect, but I don't see where such a guarantee should be required before you decide to be frank and open about your complaints.
The implication of your comment did not really go over my head. Clearly you were sayin:
1. That I simply talk out of my ***, and/or
2. That I simply am an ***, and no more, and, implicitly
3. That you disapprove of, if not sternly condemn, me, my behavior, my attitude, my manners and/or some other aspect of my presence here.
By pretending like I didn't know what you meant, I was simply inviting you, as I have in the past, to elaborate and directly express your true thoughts/feelings about something you think is objectionable. There is no requirement that you do this, of course, and you generally appear to be a person who wishes to avoid confrontation, which is fine, if that's what you prefer. Personally, if I really have strong feelings about something, I prefer to directly address the issue, but that's just me, I spoze.
The invitation is open. If there is something about me that's bothering you, feel free to express it to me directly. If you want me to "change," there's no guarantee you will get what you want in that respect, but I don't see where such a guarantee should be required before you decide to be frank and open about your complaints.
I believe she was saying that there wasn't any other part of the body that would have been used.
Edit: Well, I obviously did not finish reading the thread first. It's a shame, as the thread has been greatly entertaining.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
I think you're exactly right, Eric, see my post directly above yours.
actually I was referring to his pet mule, which I assumed was the source of many of his comments, as well as being his primary means of transportation and primary companion in life. Of course, you know what they say happens when you assume....
In answer to your questions Aint Hoppin, it is nice to be able to read your posts without having to spend extra time trying to figure out the special lingo you so often employ as your posting style. I believe I have told you before, both on the message board and on the facebook page, that I am not necessarily going to spend time responding to posts that I find difficult to decipher.
Hopper
Banned
Well, OK, den, Mo, Kewl! I take it that this means we'll be gittin together sometime here, right soon, to share a jug of wine, eh!?
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
It is with great pride that I accept the award for the board's most intellectually dishonest bully from its most persecuted cartoon character. I couldn't have dreamed up a better ending than this.
Boondocksaint27
Active Member
Just speculation at this point, but I wonder if the appeals process were to be streamlined and convicted murderers knew that they would only sit in prison for a year or two at the most before being executed, if it would serve as more of a deterrant. I know that whether or not it is a deterrant now is under extensive debate (here and elsewhere), but if they knew that their cases and appeals would be forced to the front of the line and would be dealt with quickly, I would think that it would at least be given more consideration in their warped minds then it does now, knowing that they can sit there for 25 plus years while they use every angle imaginable.
Always a chance, but doubtful. Most crimes are usually committed in a fit of rage and not usually premeditated. That said, I'd be for a quicker appeal process if only for the monetary savings.
Because, you know, pennies of Viny's taxes are worth more than a human life.
The internet consistently reminds me that America is quickly becoming the place where the most treasured right guaranteed by the Constitution is the right to not give a damn about anyone else.
For those of us that believe that as individuals we're only healthy to the extent that our ideas are humane, this is a very depressing state of affairs.
The internet consistently reminds me that America is quickly becoming the place where the most treasured right guaranteed by the Constitution is the right to not give a damn about anyone else.
For those of us that believe that as individuals we're only healthy to the extent that our ideas are humane, this is a very depressing state of affairs.
Not when the death penalty is involved. Death penalty cases are tried based on pre-meditation knowing that you are in fact going to take a life. If you walk in on your wife banging the neighbor and kill said neighbor on the spot you will not be tried for the death penalty. It was not pre-meditated but rather a "crime of passion".
Conversely, if you walk in on your wife and the neighbor and then turn away and begin planning your neighbors demise and carry out said plan, you may be eligible for the death penalty.
Death penalty is all about pre-meditation. This is why I'm curious to see how they charge the Sloops. The prosecuters would have to show that the Sloops planned and then knowingly set out to kill that little 4 year old to get the death penalty. I suspect that they will likely get life in prison where other inmates will carry out the death sentence.
Misinformation. Premeditation is NOT a required element for the death penalty.
In Utah, the death penalty is punishment for Aggravated Murder. This includes several possible offenses that don't involve premeditated killing or could be done in the spur of the moment. For example, the killing of a police officer qualifies regardless of premeditation. The inclusion of the felony murder rule into the aggravated murder statute also means that many unintentional deaths that occur incident to the commission of another crime could also trigger the death penalty.
Here's the Utah Aggravated Murder statute: https://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_05_020200.htm
Several states allow for the death penalty for offenses short of the killing of another.
https://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-offenses-other-murder
But thanks for telling us what you learned from watching Law and Order re-runs on A&E.
Your holier than thou attitude is off putting.
But he's right, you know.