Was he guilty?

[schmosef]

Maybe, had you lived 2000 years ago, you would have been one of the Sanhedrin crying to Pilate for our Lord to be crucified.

Why do we have to drag the Joos into this?

Wasn't it God's plan? Where would the Christians be today if he hadn't been sacrificed?

Anyway, back on topic.

I'm against capital punishment. I read something in a news article once that said that public costs for Capital trials exceeded the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail indefinitely. Also, I'm not happy with the idea of the statistics of innocent people convicted.

And our prison system is messed up. I don't understand why the State isn't required to ensure the safety of inmates. Seems like it should be a legal responsibility. Furthermore, the prison system isn't designed to rehabilitate offenders. Those that are rehabilitated are the exception, not the rule.

[Umfriend]

Costs really depend on how you want to do it. It is quite possible to execute at low cost. Hell, some might even be willing to pay for the opportunity to kill provided they dcould have their way. Just saying cost may not be that important an argument in this discussion.

[Nowhere]

I can't: you are guilty.

Oh, so you just gonna get rid of all polite and not trolling participants (hey - they only might be guilty!) of this discussion, including you, in execution room and leave me alone to argue?! This would bring this soci...uhmmmm....thread right into Temp!

[Umfriend]

When the nazis kick in, I'm not interested in the discussion is all.

[Nowhere]

Oh c'mon, I didn't use this as a real argument ("stretch"...), isntead I posted provoking and controversiall analogy/food for thought, that is technically quite accurate, when dealing with cited "practical questions of what to do with a convicted someone". And overall, post to which I replied. Paraphrazing: "You think it's wrong to execute someone, and I say life in camp (my edit) for some might be a fate worse than death, especially if they are truly innocent".

For sure this wasn't practised in some places Nazi name-bashing, at least I didn't intended it like that.

[Umfriend]

Dude, whatever you may think of KVHs POV, the fact is that he is discussing people who have been found guilty of performing crimes normal people abhor. Nazis murdered for totaly different reasons *even if* they also killed for above. I do not think you would have used it against me had I posted KVHs post.

It is not provoking and controversial in that it contributes to the argument. It's plain flame-baiting and that is the technically accurate name. If you can only argue KVHs point using Nazis, then I guess you can;t argue a whole lot.

Do what you like, but do not expect my respect for this type of "arguing".

[Nowhere]

I've had a strong impression KvH was discussing case of someone innocent, thus the analogy seemed somehow of use to me, you might of course not agree with that (of course Nazis killed for other reasons...but I was describing what happened, not motives behind it - it was definatelly killing of "sentenced" (in light of law back then), but innocent people; of course they were killed in completelly different scale, but I seem to remember a sentance "who saves one life, saves the world entire"...).
And when it comes to controversial and provoking - I guess I was mostly hoping it would make KvH start wondering about it, nothing more.

And I don't see compelling reason why I wouldn't post it, other than knowing (now) your views on the matter of using such arguments.

[Umfriend]

OK, guess we understand each other then. I'm pretty sure that if you sleep over it a little you'll find better ways to have an argument with KVH. It ain;'t that hard

[Damien]

The death penalty is supposed to teach the hardest lesson lust like getting your hand chopped off for stealing. It is one of those measures that does not seem to be very effective. People still steal and take life knowing the consequences. Maybe there needs to be a new approach to crime and punishment. why for instance put Martha Stewart in prison. Is she a threat to society? If bad taste is threatening then by all means lock the woman up. The only problem is that the tax payer ends up paying for her. She would be much better suited to community service. Petty drug crime is filling many prisons around the world at the cost of the tax payer. This stubborn hard approach is not working. We are just creating hardened criminals. Empty the prisons of all the non lethal prisoners and then maybe we could afford the cost of keeping all the bad people in prison.

[schmosef]

Costs really depend on how you want to do it. It is quite possible to execute at low cost. Hell, some might even be willing to pay for the opportunity to kill provided they dcould have their way. Just saying cost may not be that important an argument in this discussion.

I mean court costs to present a capital case.

[Umfriend]

Oh, was not aware that that was more expensive? Not sure it is everywhere, if anywhere. I'm ignorant on this.

[schmosef]

I read this somewhere. A long time ago. Not sure how inflation may affect the numbers if crunched today. Not sure it it's even accurate or biased. It's not the only reason I have for being against capital punishment. Before I knew this, I believed that capital punishmet was cheaper than keeping someone in jail until they died, and that made me for capital punishment. Knowing that my assumption might be false made me rethink the whole thing.

[Umfriend]

I am pretty sure one does not need to be more expensive than the other: the cost is really realted to how you do it. Sure, if you trim down on both completely, one will be the cheapest (unless they are as dear which is as likely as, uhm, unlikely). Bu tat that level, I would venture, both are dirt cheap and the difference is irrelevant,

If this is all true, then we can focus on the question whether, and under what conditions, a death penalty is acceptable in prinple. Just to keep it clean from something as base as monetary considerations.

[schmosef]

I am pretty sure one does not need to be more expensive than the other: the cost is really realted to how you do it. Sure, if you trim down on both completely, one will be the cheapest (unless they are as dear which is as likely as, uhm, unlikely). Bu tat that level, I would venture, both are dirt cheap and the difference is irrelevant,

If this is all true, then we can focus on the question whether, and under what conditions, a death penalty is acceptable in prinple. Just to keep it clean from something as base as monetary considerations.

via google: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...=7#From%20DPIC

[KvHagedorn]

If lawyers were really crusaders for justice and not money grubbing bastards, most trials would be cheap and swift.

Let's just take the open and shut cases, like when some scumbag who was there with blood on his hands brags to his buddy how he tortured some poor woman to death. Shoot the ****er in the head! NOW!

But NO! it turns out he was ONLY 17 years and 361 days old at the time and therefore an IRRATIONAL CHILD who could not possibly have known what he was doing or the consequences of his actions. If he had been 5 days older, he would have been fully aware of this when he twisted that knife in that poor womans guts, and would have then been eligible for the death penalty. Now? Out in 7 buddy! OOOrah!

This actually happened right here not long ago, too. dunno about the out in 7 bit, but the death sentence was commuted because he was a couple of weeks shy of that magical age of 6574.5 days, at which he goes from utterly irresponsible minor child to fully empowered and rational adult in an instant. This was an absolute scumbag who thought it would be cool to rape and murder a 50 yo teacher and then brag about it. He was caught IN HER CAR using HER credit cards with HER BLOOD stains on his clothes. If a case can make it into this kind of clear cut category, put a bullet in the evil lowlife's head right now.