Firing squads called for by US politicians

[TarJak]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-18/us-states-consider-firing-squads-after-dennis-mcguire-execution/5206712

Two politicians are calling for the use of firing squads if pharmacutical companies boycot lethal injection drug supply.

[Wolferz]

An eye for an eye only makes everyone blind.:dead:

[Jimbuna]

Food for thought.

[Gargamel]

What I find funny is that the current cocktail for lethal injections has minimal other therapeutic uses, yet there are many other cocktails that are commonly used that, when given in higher doses, would give the affect desired.

For example. Given a high enough does of Versed and Succs, the patient (Victim?) will enter a state were they will be fully paralyzed and in an amnesic state. Then administering a large bolus of Potassium Chloride (KCl) will effectively paralyze the heart and throw it into a lethal arrhythmia. There would be no outward signs of suffering and the patient would not be conscious throughout.

Versed and Succs are used in identical forms for Rapid Sequence Intubation (RSI) and other treatments that consciousness would be detrimental to the patient (Resetting a severely dislocated Joint). KCl is used to suppress heart dysrythmias and hypokalemia, in smaller doses.

I don't see the need for outdated methods when humane and commonly used drugs are easily available.

[Oberon]

But how will they be effective with reduced magazines? :nope:

EDIT: Besides, from what I've heard here, the US Police force already is a firing squad :03::haha:

[August]

Old fashioned hanging works much better and doesn't violate anti-gunner sensibilities... :yep:

[soopaman2]

Old fashioned hanging works much better and doesn't violate anti-gunner sensibilities... :yep:

Niether does stoning, besides it might make the muzzies like us more.:yeah:

[Catfish]

Niether does stoning, besides it might make the muzzies like us more.:yeah:

Lol :)

But then, if your glorious nation would just stop bullying those muslims, they would probably just ignore you :O:

[soopaman2]

Lol :)

But then, if your glorious nation would just stop bullying those muslims, they would probably just ignore you :O:


Not to derail but as long as Israel exists, and my "glorious nation" supports them (arms them, trains them, gives freebies like no other), they will hate us no matter what.

Lets not delude ourselves.

[Oberon]

Niether does stoning, besides it might make the muzzies like us more.:yeah:

Colorado and Washington State are way ahead of you. :03:

[em2nought]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-18/us-states-consider-firing-squads-after-dennis-mcguire-execution/5206712

Two politicians are calling for the use of firing squads if pharmacutical companies boycot lethal injection drug supply.

Just the mere mention of politicians and firing squads in the same sentence makes me giddy! :D

[TorpX]

Old fashioned hanging works much better and doesn't violate anti-gunner sensibilities... :yep:


+1 :up:

[desertstriker]

Atleast bullets have a very high success rate:03:

[Cybermat47]

Niether does stoning, besides it might make the muzzies like us more.:yeah:

Oh, you should see what the Muslims here do. After some Muslims took part in protests, other Muslims helped with the reconstruction. Absolutely disgusting :nope:

[Skybird]

It's worth to note that the 8th Amendment and several rulings made by the Supreme Court say that no punishment shall be "unusual", "excessive" or explicitly "cruel".

No matter how you stand regarding death "penalty", to execute somebody by implementing a lasting agony, is not only barbaric and unacceptable, but unneeded as well. That rules out methods like the 10 minutes long poisoning of the subject lately, or hanging by pulling the body up with the rope and effectively strangling the subject, instead of having it falling down a pit and braking the neck, or electric chairs which have the subject sometimes surviving for minutes in pain and consciousness. The straightest solution to get rid of somebody (that is what death "penalty" really is about, because it is no penalty - for a penalty the subject must live to endure it) is a shot to the neck. Short and painless, survival rate almost nill. Shots to the head occasionally get survived, though not in a state of consciousness.

I never understood the show and theatre they make of executions. Years of waiting on the death list. Big showroom event. Ritual procedures, magical machineries (injection machines) and all that. Bollocks. If you want to see somebody suffering, rent a splatter video, or whip your poor dog. There is the court verdict, there is an appeal court, the last appeal is rejected - no reason to still wait for years. Execute the subject on the same day the last juristic step was rejected - and I do not mean the governor denying the last minute pardon (which is something that should be abandoned - a governor should not have the right to bypass the law on behalf of a sentenced subject - what the heck does he think he is?).

By my logic, I would shoot the subject when it sleeps unsuspecting. Again: no need to implement unneeded suffering, pain or fear - execution is no penalty in the meaning of "penalty" anyway. It's a disposal.

[Wolferz]

Considering the inhumane acts these animals have committed, do they really deserve a humane end to their miserable lives?
Firing squad would be too easy an out imho.:hmmm:

[Ducimus]

A properly done drop hanging is probably one of the more humane and inexpensive methods of executions.

Besides, ammo's getting expensive. :O:

[u crank]

I would be in favor of one option in regards to capital punishment. A revolver and one bullet. One chance only to do it yourself. Take it or leave it.:dead:

[kranz]

Considering the inhumane acts these animals have committed, do they really deserve a humane end to their miserable lives?
Firing squad would be too easy an out imho.:hmmm:
I agree.
There should also be 10 rattan cane strokes for writing such BS.

[Schroeder]

Considering the inhumane acts these animals have committed, do they really deserve a humane end to their miserable lives?
Firing squad would be too easy an out imho.:hmmm:
So why are the people carrying out the inhumane punishment that you propose then better than the criminal? To lower yourself to their level is plain wrong, sometimes tempting but wrong!:nope:

[MH]

execution is no penalty in the meaning of "penalty" anyway. It's a disposal In some cases it is disposal indeed but for most part when it comes to criminal law it is about the show , prevention and PR.

Not mutch diffrent from witch burning.:haha:
Yet when it comes to some types of peaple i dont care.

[Wolferz]

So why are the people carrying out the inhumane punishment that you propose then better than the criminal? To lower yourself to their level is plain wrong, sometimes tempting but wrong!:nope:

No matter how it's viewed, it's still murder when a death sentence is levied. The states that practice the punishment are no better than those being punished. Putting them down like a rabid dog should be sufficient and cause no shortage in the supplies of killing cocktails. Plenty made for the vets to snuff our aged pets. Use the same thing on the condemned as well.
If money is the object, a rope is cheap, reusable and oh so effective.:dead:

[NeonSamurai]

Except hanging wasn't all that effective as a humane method. Hangings were botched a great deal, in fact I believe there were more botched ones then proper ones. There are so many different variables to consider: weight and build of the person, characteristics of the rope (humidity, tensile strength, etc), precise positioning of the knot, the rope properly fashioned into a noose, the length of the drop, etc. If you screwed up it could result in the rope failing, the person slowly choking to death, their head getting ripped off, etc... Yes often the person died, but it didn't go to plan very often.

Lethal injection is somewhat simpler, yet for a humane and painless method, why do they feel the need to inject a substance that paralyzes the vocal cords first? There is some scant research that suggests this is one of the worst forms.

Beheading might be better, though it is messy (but so is a firing squad and you have to deal with the human element), and there is some debate if the person looses consciousness immediately or not.

Maybe we should blow people up instead. That would be quick, give them a plastic explosive helmet. But still the problem of the mess.


Anyhow the bigger concern in my opinion is the current prison population, and how this has become an industry in the United States. For the land of the free, why are more people per capita prisoners, than any single other nation in the world. It is a real paradox...

[Cybermat47]

Considering the inhumane acts these animals have committed, do they really deserve a humane end to their miserable lives?
Firing squad would be too easy an out imho.:hmmm:

Perhaps it's to show that we're better than them?

[soopaman2]

How about we use bolt guns like we do when we slaughter cattle?

A needle into the base of the brain, fast, ends all physical processes instantly.

There are some people who do not deserve life, even in prison.

Only because these people disrespected life in the first place.

I do see it as a disposal method, a disposal of useless crap to our society, as so deemed by our laws.

Only for the most vile of offenders of course, it should never be given out arbitrarily or out of anger, or public pressure.

[Skybird]

Considering the inhumane acts these animals have committed, do they really deserve a humane end to their miserable lives?
Firing squad would be too easy an out imho.:hmmm:
So both the constitution's/8th amendment's and the Supreme Court's rulings should be ignored? Just so that you get your private rocky horror torture show? It sounds suspiciously like lynching and revenge-before-law to me.

A penalty is a measurement by which you want to alter and/or sanction the behavior of a person. For that, the subject has to live on, both to show (or show not) a consequence in its behavior, and to endure the penalty. Killing somebody negates both.

Compensation is an additional task that is added to the penalty - where compensation/reparation is possible at least.

On a sidenote, a good principle imo is that the penalty given shall not be more serious than the crime. When somebody steals 100 dollar, the victim can demand at court to be given back those 100 dollars (compensation), and the perpetrator be given an additional penalty from 0 to 100 dollar maximum, again to be given to the victim, since the state has not been victim of the crime, but the person who got robbed. Costs for proceedings also have to be payed by the perpetrator, of course. the victim also has the right to pledge for a lower or no penalty, if it wants that.

Execution imo is an option in case of prevention against very serious, major extraordinary sorts of crime and terrorism. The drug baron in prison who rules his empire even from behiodn bars. The radical ideological terrorist who becomes the excuse for his followers to commit bombing stirkes to blackmail the state for his release. The weapon trader or slave trader who after release can be expected to just carry on where they were interrupted. Such crimes cannot be compensated, and the perspective of prevention and disposal win in dominance. The normal scale of crimes you see people in prison for most of the time are not covered by this. I do not wish executions to become standard procedures in the law's ordinary arsenal of legal responses to crime in society.

Long term prisoners who have life sentences shall be allowed to end their lives voluntarily, if they desire that. However, there should be high penalties for staff trying to make normal prison life so miserable for them so that they see no other way than suicide, however. Voluntarily: okay, I am for principle reasons for everybody's guaranteed freedom to end his life according to his choosing. It's a basic human right, and no society has the right to demand and to force somebody to live if for whatever his reason he seriously and really does not want to live.

[August]

Maybe we should blow people up instead. That would be quick, give them a plastic explosive helmet. But still the problem of the mess.

Wasn't there a Rutger Hauer movie that had explosive neck bands? That'd work... :yep:

[soopaman2]

Wasn't there a Rutger Hauer movie that had explosive neck bands? That'd work... :yep:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103239/

I thought I was the only man alive who watched that sack of crap.:woot:

Funny how he gets chained to a chick, and not some toothless meth addict, or baby raper.

[August]

Funny how he gets chained to a chick, and not some toothless meth addict, or baby raper.

Nope he gets chained to hot babes only. It's in his contract.

[Wolferz]

Nope he gets chained to hot babes only. It's in his contract.

Off with his head.:O:

[Cybermat47]

So why are the people carrying out the inhumane punishment that you propose then better than the criminal? To lower yourself to their level is plain wrong, sometimes tempting but wrong!:nope:

I absolutely agree :up:

[August]

So why are the people carrying out the inhumane punishment that you propose then better than the criminal? To lower yourself to their level is plain wrong, sometimes tempting but wrong!:nope:


Because for one thing punishment and crime are two completely different things. The victim of a crime has no choice in the matter. The criminal on the other hand can easily avoid the punishment by simply not committing the crime in the first place.

[Mr Quatro]

How many executions a year in the USA anyway?

How many inmates were executed last year? - Do You Know at ... (http://www.libraryspot.com/know/capitalpunishment.htm)

www.libraryspot.com/know/capitalpunishment.htm
How many inmates were executed last year? In 2012, 43 inmates were executed in the United States, the same as in 2011.


I hear about men waiting on death row for years waiting for the last legal defense to work or for the sentence to be commuted by the governor.

Humans have something inside of them called a spirit and when they die the spirit no longer has a body left to dwell in. This is where the term lost soul comes from.

Bury them alive under water upside down in a sealed coffin, uhmm an old decommissioned submarine would work for the present number of 43 a year, wouldn't it?

[Tribesman]

How many executions a year in the USA anyway?



Lets guess.
Was it more than Yemen and Sudan did but less than Iran and Saudi Arabia?

[Ducimus]

Because for one thing punishment and crime are two completely different things. The victim of a crime has no choice in the matter. The criminal on the other hand can easily avoid the punishment by simply not committing the crime in the first place.

Agreed. I'm a firm believer in capital punishment when it fits the crime, and the perpetrator is beyond redemption. An easy example that even opponent's of capital punishment might agree with is this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez
(In his case, the justice system was entirely too slow)

Too many people are overly concerned with the rights of the criminal and not the rights of the victims. The Richard Ramirez's of the world are nothing short of oxygen thieves, and the world is a better place without them.

[Jimbuna]

^ A most charming individual...not :nope:

[Tchocky]

I'm against capital punishment on the simple grounds that you can't take it back if you get it wrong, and there is ample evidence that innocents have been put on Death Row.

The relative nastiness of certain criminals doesn't really enter into it for me, and it shouldn't be grounds for policy.

[Tribesman]

I'm against capital punishment on the simple grounds that you can't take it back if you get it wrong, and there is ample evidence that innocents have been put on Death Row.

The relative nastiness of certain criminals doesn't really enter into it for me, and it shouldn't be grounds for policy.

Yes:yep:
You are either against capital punishment for an actual reason or you are not really against capital punishment.
The easiest way to counter that "but what about this really nasty criminal" argument is pull up any of the many cases where that specific argument was used if favour of executing people who were later found to be innocent.

[Wolferz]

If the politicians want firing squads, by all means give them what they want!

We can do much better with fewer politicians.:yeah:

[Platapus]

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

Freddy Nietzsche

[Jimbuna]

If the politicians want firing squads, by all means give them what they want!

We can do much better with fewer politicians.:yeah:

The thought had crossed my mind :)

[Wolferz]

The thought had crossed my mind :)

When thoughts cross my mind, they need to pack a lunch.:88):doh::D

[Tango589]

http://stayofexecution.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tumbleweed.gif

[Wolferz]

http://stayofexecution.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tumbleweed.gif

:har: ZACTLY!!!

[Tango589]

I know the feeling. My better half reckons there's nought in my head but pebbles.:88)

[Oberon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYV-qYeWPkk

[Tango589]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UiSMyyj-Ac The Sons of the Pioneers ride again!:yeah:
:up:

[Webster]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-18/us-states-consider-firing-squads-after-dennis-mcguire-execution/5206712

Two politicians are calling for the use of firing squads if pharmacutical companies boycot lethal injection drug supply.

great, now they can save tax payers some money, go back to hanging and firing squads instead of fancy pain free ways to kill.

its a punishment sentence reserved for the worst crimes and the most deserving of it, its not supposed to be a humane and nice experience.

[Wolferz]

great, now they can save tax payers some money, go back to hanging and firing squads instead of fancy pain free ways to kill.

its a punishment sentence reserved for the worst crimes and the most deserving of it, its not supposed to be a humane and nice experience. The Liberals will cry.:wah:

[August]

I'm against capital punishment on the simple grounds that you can't take it back if you get it wrong, and there is ample evidence that innocents have been put on Death Row.

The relative nastiness of certain criminals doesn't really enter into it for me, and it shouldn't be grounds for policy.

Well there's the rub. When guilt is far,... far,... far... beyond a reasonable doubt a death penalty is entirely proportional to the crime but can we trust the government not to screw it up?

I'd think that's the idea with these lengthy appeals processes that capital criminals get these days. It didn't always be like now. For example the killers in Truman Capote's "in cold blood" were executed only 5 years after their conviction (1960 to 65). Now it averages what,? 20 years or so?

Between this much lengthened appeals process and the advent of DNA and other scientific testing though I think it's now possible to determine guilt with a lot more certainty than at any time in the past.

[August]

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

Freddy Nietzsche


He say's that like it's a bad thing! :hmmm:

Seriously though, when fighting monsters you must gaze at least long enough to learn how to defeat them or they will destroy what you are fighting to defend. Nietzsche doesn't really address that little detail.

There's another quote I've always liked that's far less negative and far more productive:

"Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I shall fear no evil.
For I am the meanest, toughest son of a bitch in the valley."

and of course Patton said:

"I want you to stop thinking about what he's gonna do to you and start thinking about what you're gonna do to him."

You just can't go into a fight thinking you're gonna loose or you will loose. Self doubt is a cancer that eats away at the will. It's contagious too. That's the real abyss to worry about imo.

[soopaman2]

The Liberals will cry.:wah:

I am Liberal and we need to kill more wastes of oxygen, rather than feeding them, and giving them TV and books, and schooling, and free room and board. I'd rather buy a tank, or pay for Obamas vacations than pay my taxmoney on blatantly guilty killers.

They disrespect life, they lose there own.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Or if you do not want to click, "an eye for an eye"

[Wolferz]

I am Liberal and we need to kill more wastes of oxygen, rather than feeding them, and giving them TV and books, and schooling, and free room and board. I'd rather buy a tank, or pay for Obamas vacations than pay my taxmoney on blatantly guilty killers.

They disrespect life, they lose there own.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Or if you do not want to click, "an eye for an eye"

This would be considered a tad racist these days.:hmmm:

Ex. Law #196. "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one mana of silver. If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price." Hammurabi law is a bit dated don't you think?:)
At least the Freemen got their medical bill paid.
Or would you throw the first stone at a convicted whore?:06:

[soopaman2]

Yeah take it literal. Nice strawman,

I summed it up as an eye for an eye.

I love when people zoom past the point, because it does not fit thier agenda. You can find alot of archaic crap in the bible too, but that is holy word, and the brutal crap is generally ignored. I am sure you made that discernment before, but here, nope,...Once again, awesome deflection, but it don't work on me. Catholics eat pork, and we don't stone women. 2 things we should and shouldn't be doing if you read the Bible.

If you are calling execution barbaric, then I disagree, it is merciful to the victims, and survivors.

Why should a liberal have to discipline people on what justice is, sitting in a cell, free meals, heat and library, schooling, trade programs, is not justice.

I am glad you want to feed them and school them, I don't.

[Wolferz]

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here and I agree that those with no respect for the life of their peers should be treated just as disrespectfully up to and including ending them. Too many people are all touchy feely about the comfort of murderers prior to their execution. That one guy in Ohio is a prime example. On death row for thirty years. Long enough to become so obese that he feared an excruciating death. Then he successfully lobbies for a stay on those grounds. Too bad we had to wait for him to die naturally, which he did.:down:

[Tchocky]

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here and I agree that those with no respect for the life of their peers should be treated just as disrespectfully up to and including ending them
Torture the torturers and rape the rapists, eh?


Not sure about the hyper-aggressive tone this thread is taking, seems like whenever this kind of thing comes up forum members slobber all over the gleaming sword of vengeance, trying to outdo each other in bloodthirsty vows.

August - I see where you're coming from, and yes, technical evidence gathering and interpretation has come a long way. But we've had the use of DNA evidence for quite a few decades now and there are still cases of innocents sent to Death Row. I don't think the economic argument for the death penalty outweighs the moral argument against it.

Definitely we're closer to excluding reasonable doubt in some cases, I just don't believe that taking an absolutely irrevocable step is ever necessary in criminal justice. Especially where guilt is determined in an adversarial jury trial.

[soopaman2]

Ruffling feathers is fun Wolferz.
Makes ya feel alive.:D

I kinda feel the same way you do, you just stated it in a more tactful way. But...

I can understand why anti abortionists are they way they are, (though I do not agree with the tactics) I can even get the silly PETA people who splash paint on furs....

But I do not understand how so many people (I admit, it is alot) could show more empathy towards a dreg of society, than the victim of the crime.

I do not get it, if morality is your reason for your beliefs, then what about the morality of the action that got them there.? (we cannot kill him it's wrong...What did he do?...He raped and killed a woman and 2 babies....OK, lets feed him until he is elderly, give him free healthcare, and put him through school.) You know how much I would have to pay for that? I am about to commit a crime!

This anti death penalty is so dripping with hollywood Melancholy and zero reason, or regard for a smooth running society of laws.

(Edit: I love Texas)

[Wolferz]

How do I feel about ignorance and apathy?

Don't know.
Don't care.

[Oberon]

Not sure about the hyper-aggressive tone this thread is taking, seems like whenever this kind of thing comes up forum members slobber all over the gleaming sword of vengeance, trying to outdo each other in bloodthirsty vows.

Not just me that noticed that then, happens a lot in threads about criminals or people who have been suspected of wrongdoing in society and/or the laws eyes. The old mob mentality, once upon a time it would have resulted in pitchforks and torches, at least now it's just hastily typed words on a forum, for now anyway. I think that there's become a detachment from the law enforcing section of government and the society it serves, some Americans see police officers as tools of oppression, some British see the police as being corrupt and self-serving. As such there is a gut instinct to circumnavigate the due process that society created in th first place, thus taking us back to square one before the police were invented and the only way to solve crime was to commit crime or be very rich. Furthermore, the fact that mob mentality is incredibly easy to stir up in modern media, just look at the immigration issue in the UK or politics in the US, means that more frequently the law enforcement find themselves lagging behind in dispatching the justice demanded by the community, who have already formed a mob, got their pitchforks and torches together, decided who did it, how they should be executed and where and when before the police have even got into their cruiser.
Rapid and widespread public social communication = double edged sword.

[August]

then what about the morality of the action that got them there.? (we cannot kill him it's wrong...What did he do?...He raped and killed a woman and 2 babies....OK, lets feed him until he is elderly, give him free healthcare, and put him through school.)

Can you guarantee that innocent people will never get convicted of crimes they did not commit? This can and has happened with disturbing frequency in the past and not always because of forensic limitations.

As Tchocky notes our justice system is adversarial in nature. That means judgements are a product of the abilities of the lawyers involved as much as the evidence presented. Miscarriages of justice will happen but prison sentences can be commuted, the death penalty once carried out cannot.

[soopaman2]

Can you guarantee that innocent people will never get convicted of crimes they did not commit? This can and has happened with disturbing frequency in the past and not always because of forensic limitations.

As Tchocky notes our justice system is adversarial in nature. That means judgements are a product of the abilities of the lawyers involved as much as the evidence presented. Miscarriages of justice will happen but prison sentences can be commuted, the death penalty once carried out cannot.


There's been an urban legend floating around about Texas, now I never verified it, and just called it "Americana" But if 3 people witness your crime in Texas then you get an express lane to death row.

Now I never verified it, but it or something like it makes sense.

I do not want to pay for these guys to become lawyers in jail, when the victims if they were still alive, would have to pay 25k a year for the same thing.

What irks me is not the sentence itself, but how well they have it inside. School, food, warm bed, trade skill learning, there are honest Americans who would like that training and treatment, without having to literally kill for it.

All free, all you have to do is commit a crime.

Jailing people for life is less a deterrent, than dying IMHO.

I understand you want to be sure, but there are cases when we are sure.....And nothing is done, but coddle them, school them, feed them, pay for them to be married in jail, sleep them, pay for security on them, etc...when they should just be killed lawfully.

(late edit: Charles Manson, comes to mind)

[August]

I understand you want to be sure, but there are cases when we are sure.....And nothing is done, but coddle them, school them, feed them, pay for them to be married in jail, sleep them, pay for security on them, etc...when they should just be killed lawfully.

(late edit: Charles Manson, comes to mind)

Oh I am not disagreeing with you on it's disagree-ability. I'm just saying that the more you rush to save yourself a few tax bucks the more likely you'll execute innocent people doing it.

[soopaman2]

Oh I am not disagreeing with you on it's disagree-ability. I'm just saying that the more you rush to save yourself a few tax bucks the more likely you'll execute innocent people doing it.

Either solution requires the impossible, that we are able to separate feelings from the dispensation of law.

Humankind is flawed in that manner, which is why I do get the anti DP lobby, and why I get the pro lobby.

I skew more towards the side of pro, though I acknowledge mistakes are made, due to once again human conditions with the trial.

Whats the old quote? About letting 100 go just to save one innocent one, the person who said that didn't have the 100 they let go in thier neighborhood.:D

[Tribesman]

There's been an urban legend floating around about Texas, now I never verified it, and just called it "Americana" But if 3 people witness your crime in Texas then you get an express lane to death row.

Now I never verified it, but it or something like it makes sense.





Why does it make sense?
A witness can make a false statement that seems believable, either by mistake or deliberately.

I understand you want to be sure, but there are cases when we are sure.....And nothing is done, but coddle them, school them, feed them, pay for them to be married in jail, sleep them, pay for security on them, etc...when they should just be killed lawfully.

If they were not sure then there wouldn't have been a guilty verdict.
How do you separate the ones where they are sure of from the ones they are sure of?

[Platapus]

What is the purpose of incarceration/death penalty?

Punishment or revenge?

or Both, neither?:hmmm:

[August]

What is the purpose of incarceration/death penalty?

Punishment or revenge?

or Both, neither?:hmmm:

Punishment like the law clearly states would be my answer.

I'll say one thing for the death penalty. It's is the only iron clad anti recidivist criminal penalty there is. :yep:

[Tribesman]

I'll say one thing for the death penalty. It's is the only iron clad anti recidivist criminal penalty there is. :yep:
Errrrr....no it isn't.

[Webster]

Errrrr....no it isn't.

im pretty sure dead people don't commit anymore crimes, except maybe you could say they are litter

[Tribesman]

im pretty sure dead people don't commit anymore crimes, except maybe you could say they are litter

Life without parole does the same, so its not the "only" as was claimed.
Plus if you execute the wrong person you have done nothing to stop the actual criminal from committing more crimes. So it isn't "iron clad" either.
So.
Errrrr....no it isn't:yep:

[Sailor Steve]

Life without parole does the same, so its not the "only" as was claimed.
No such thing. There's always a chance they'll be released for one reason or another, or escape.

Plus if you execute the wrong person you have done nothing to stop the actual criminal from committing more crimes.
That is the only real argument against the death penalty. Not the actual criminal committing more crimes, or we wouldn't have the old saying "better ten guilty men walk free than one innocent man be punished". Imprisoning the wrong man doesn't stop the criminal from committing more crimes either, so that half of your argument is invalid.

So...no it isn't:yep:
So...yes it is. :yep:

[Oberon]

Just kill everyone. Problem solved. :yeah:

[Tribesman]

No such thing. There's always a chance they'll be released for one reason or another, or escape.


Imprisoning the wrong man doesn't stop the criminal from committing more crimes either, so that half of your argument is invalid.


So...yes it is. :yep:
If life without parole means life without parole then it does on the release front.

That is the only real argument against the death penalty. That is the only argument that is needed, that has been established and accepted, and cannot be countered, yet people still argue for the death penalty despite accepting that fact.

Imprisoning the wrong man doesn't stop the criminal from committing more crimes either, so that half of your argument is invalid. Not invalid at all, the claim was focused on "only" and "cast iron", yet clearly it was neither.
The fact that the alterantives are also not the "only" or "cast iron" does not remove the invalidity of the original statement.

So....no it isn't.

[August]

No such thing. There's always a chance they'll be released for one reason or another, or escape.

Not to mention kill a fellow prisoner or a guard. Plenty of time for it to happen with a life sentence.

[Tribesman]

Not to mention kill a fellow prisoner or a guard. Plenty of time for it to happen with a life sentence.
Plenty of time for that while waiting years on death row.
Though of course neither would be recidivist crimes would they.

[donna52522]

Plenty of time for that while waiting years on death row.
Though of course neither would be recidivist crimes would they.

Death row is solitary confinement. Not easy for them to obtain something that can be made into a weapon, and they are probably dealt with with at least 2 guards whenever they need to be dealt with in person.

[Sailor Steve]

If life without parole means life without parole then it does on the release front.
And yet people do get their sentences commuted, and some do escape.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/lwop.htm

So "Life without parole" really means "unless someone decides to let him go", or "until he escapes".

That is the only argument that is needed, that has been established and accepted, and cannot be countered, yet people still argue for the death penalty despite accepting that fact.
Not really. What we need is a better way to make sure we have the right person.

Not invalid at all, the claim was focused on "only" and "cast iron", yet clearly it was neither.
The fact that the alterantives are also not the "only" or "cast iron" does not remove the invalidity of the original statement.
The statement was that executing the murderer is the only way to guarantee that he doesn't kill again. Ted Bundy did escape the authorities more than once and while he was free he did kill again, so imprisoning him some more did allow him to keep killing. Putting him to death was indeed the "only" way to stop him, and it was very much "cast iron".

So....no it isn't.
So in Ted Bundy's case, yes it is.

[TarJak]

It's clear that execution is not a deterrent so it must be a punishment of some sort.

Killing the killer is the key though. As tribes pointed out if you get the wrong guy the killer can kill again.

[TarJak]

Death row is solitary confinement. Not easy for them to obtain something that can be made into a weapon, and they are probably dealt with with at least 2 guards whenever they need to be dealt with in person.

If they have a toothbrush they're armed.

[Sailor Steve]

It's clear that execution is not a deterrent so it must be a punishment of some sort.
That's true. It also seems that no punisment is ever a deterrent to others. Should we not administer punishment then?

Killing the killer is the key though. As tribes pointed out if you get the wrong guy the killer can kill again.
That's true no matter what the punishment is.

[Tribesman]

Death row is solitary confinement. Not easy for them to obtain something that can be made into a weapon, and they are probably dealt with with at least 2 guards whenever they need to be dealt with in person.
Is there any reason why life without parole shouldn't be in solitary confinement?

And yet people do get their sentences commuted, and some do escape.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/lwop.htm

So "Life without parole" really means "unless someone decides to let him go", or "until he escapes".



The former can be changed, the latter isn't relevant to the claim that was made.

Not really. What we need is a better way to make sure we have the right person.
Good luck on that.

The statement was that executing the murderer is the only way to guarantee that he doesn't kill again.

Read the statement.

Ted Bundy did escape the authorities more than once and while he was free he did kill again, so imprisoning him some more did allow him to keep killing. Irrelevant.
BTW do you remember the last time you tried using Bundy in a death penalty topic?
Do you remember why it didn't work for the argument you were trying to put forward then?
Same applies again, it doesn't work for what you are trying to argue.

So in Ted Bundy's case, yes it is Those crimes do not fit the bill.
So ....no it isn't.

Its very simple Sailor, for you to make a case that execution is the only cast iron way to prevent re offending after completion of sentence is for you to find someone who committed a crime after they had been imprisoned until they died.
Anything else doesn't address the fault in the initial claim.:yep:

As for escape and committing crimes in prison, that was already dealt with....
Plenty of time for that while waiting years on death row.
Though of course neither would be recidivist crimes would they.

[Sailor Steve]

Is there any reason why life without parole shouldn't be in solitary confinement?
Because it usually isn't.

The former can be changed
But will it be? Unless it is changed then that's not a valid argument.

the latter isn't relevant to the claim that was made.
Really? Please explain why.

Read the statement.
I did. Why don't you answer it instead?

BTW do you remember the last time you tried using Bundy in a death penalty topic?
Do you remember why it didn't work for the argument you were trying to put forward then?
No. Why don't you bring it back and explain it in detail rather than make vague claims you can't or won't back up with fact?

Same applies again, it doesn't work for what you are trying to argue.
Prove it. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Those crimes do not fit the bill.
Guy murders people. Guy escapes prison and murders again. How does that not "fit the bill"?

Sailor
Trying to emphasize a point by using personal names? Major fail from the start.

The problem here is the same as always. I'm not sure what your true position is on the subject, but that's not really important either. My position is uncertain, as in I don't support the death penalty but I don't stand against it either. I just see your own arguments as vague and unsupported, and that makes me respond.

[donna52522]

Is there any reason why life without parole shouldn't be in solitary confinement?[/I]

Yes, it's called budgets. Not every prisoner can be dealt with on a one on one basis. You would need to hire more guards, build new facilities with single person cells for all lifers. Not to mention the psychological problems for the prisoner which bring back the cruel and unusual punishment debate....easier on everyone including the prisoner to just execute them. But you disagree with that solution as you disagree on every topic.

[donna52522]

If they have a toothbrush they're armed.

Yes a toothbrush could be, but the guards are prepared when they need to deal with him/her in person. The guards know that a person sentenced to die has nothing to lose, so they don't take dealing with them lightly....it's not a game.

[Tribesman]

Because it usually isn't.



So you have no reason why it cannot be then.:yep:

But will it be? Unless it is changed then that's not a valid argument.


It is valid as the initial quote was about the "only" solution giving that result, an alternative solution which gives the same result proves that claim to be false.

Really? Please explain why.

Because they don't fit into the category of crimes August talked of.


I did. Why don't you answer it instead?

You did, but you clearly didn't understand the words.
It has already been answered.

No. Why don't you bring it back and explain it in detail rather than make vague claims you can't or won't back up with fact?

That is simple, you attempted to use Bundy as an example where it didn't actually fit your argument, you are doing exactly the same thing now.
To refresh your memory you tried to use it as an example of someone convicted of certain crimes escaping to commit the very same crimes, you failed in the matter of the time line of the convictions.


Prove it. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Already proven.:yep:

Guy murders people. Guy escapes prison and murders again. How does that not "fit the bill"?

At what point in the legal process does part of Augusts claim become true?
Until those conditions are met any other crime committed does not fit the bill.
Easily demonstrated by the fact that prisoners awaiting execution can do all those things too.

Trying to emphasize a point by using personal names? Major fail from the start.

Major fail on your part.
Please don't try your mind reading powers, they really are not very good.

The problem here is the same as always. I'm not sure what your true position is on the subject, but that's not really important either. My position is uncertain, as in I don't support the death penalty but I don't stand against it either. I just see your own arguments as vague and unsupported, and that makes me respond
The problem here is that you failed to properly read and comprehend the initial statement.
It is very very simple, recidivism is impossible when you are dead.
It is why people trot out that line in support of the death penalty as it sounds good.
However recidivism can only occur after the terms have been fulfilled.
Life meaning life means they are dead when the term has finished.
Execution prevents recidivism.
Being jailed for the rest of your life also prevents recidivism.

So, is execution the only path that gives exactly that result?:hmmm:
Which comes back to my initial post on that very thing
....no it isn't:yep:

[Tribesman]

Yes, it's called budgets. .
Can you really put a price on justice?

Not every prisoner can be dealt with on a one on one basis.
Every prisoner?
Are you saying every prisoner should be jailed under those terms?

You would need to hire more guards, build new facilities with single person cells for all lifers.
And?
Aren't those damn wishy washy liberals already clamouring for single cells for all prisoners?

Not to mention the psychological problems for the prisoner which bring back the cruel and unusual punishment debate....
Going soft on the convicts now?

easier on everyone including the prisoner to just execute them.
Any proof of that?

But you disagree with that solution as you disagree on every topic
You really should avoid the definitive determiners, it is so easy to prove it false.

[Oberon]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/2623190/magic-roundabout-o.gif

[donna52522]

Tribesman, you don't even live in the USA, so don't worry yourself with what we do with our criminals. Worry about your own.

[Sailor Steve]

So you have no reason why it cannot be then.:yep:
In theory, no, but not all lifers are in solitary, so the argument is false.


But it has been adequately shown that the alternative solution does indeed offer opportunities for the convict to get out and kill again, so the claim is true.

[quote]Because they don't fit into the category of crimes August talked of.
A one-liner, even if not meant to be funny, is not the asked-for explanation. This is no more than banter.

You did, but you clearly didn't understand the words.
It has already been answered.
More banter. You haven't explained anything; you've just declared it to be so and expected everyone to understand. Still waiting for you to actually explain something.

That is simple, you attempted to use Bundy as an example where it didn't actually fit your argument, you are doing exactly the same thing now.
To refresh your memory you tried to use it as an example of someone convicted of certain crimes escaping to commit the very same crimes, you failed in the matter of the time line of the convictions.
That refreshes nothing. You make declarations, but you don't show facts. Please prove the truth of your claims.

Already proven.:yep:
Still more banter. I'm waiting for you to actually show something. Anything. All you've given so far is claims.

At what point in the legal process does part of Augusts claim become true?
Until those conditions are met any other crime committed does not fit the bill.
Easily demonstrated by the fact that prisoners awaiting execution can do all those things too.[quote]
That's a good argument for executing them now.

[quote]Major fail on your part.
Please don't try your mind reading powers, they really are not very good.
No mind-reading involved. You used a personal appelation to enforce a point, something that is only done when the user is talking down to another. Not becoming, not polite and certainly not warranted.

The problem here is that you failed to properly read and comprehend the initial statement.
So you say, but again you don't actually bother to explain why it is so.

It is very very simple, recidivism is impossible when you are dead.
It is why people trot out that line in support of the death penalty as it sounds good.
However recidivism can only occur after the terms have been fulfilled.
Again a good argument for performing the execution now, rather than later.

Execution prevents recidivism.
Only, as you have pointed out, after the execution is accomplished.

Being jailed for the rest of your life also prevents recidivism.
Only if you are actually jailed for the rest of your life.

So, is execution the only path that gives exactly that result?:hmmm:
Which comes back to my initial post on that very thing
....no it isn't:yep:
Actually August's quote was "the only iron clad anti recidivist criminal penalty there is."
...and as long as "without parole" can have flaws in it, it still is.

[Sailor Steve]

Can you really put a price on justice?

Every prisoner?
Are you saying every prisoner should be jailed under those terms?

And?
Aren't those damn wishy washy liberals already clamouring for single cells for all prisoners?

Going soft on the convicts now?

Any proof of that?

You really should avoid the definitive determiners, it is so easy to prove it false.
Not one single counter or argument in all of that, just condescension. Insulting people is not the way to conduct a proper debate.

[Sailor Steve]

Tribesman, you don't even live in the USA, so don't worry yourself with what we do with our criminals. Worry about your own.
On an international forum anyone is free to say anything they want, within reason and within the rules. I've defended others on that charge in the past, so now I have to defend him. Besides, he's guilty of plenty of other bad arguing tactics so we don't really need to worry about that one. :sunny:

[Tribesman]

In theory, no, but not all lifers are in solitary, so the argument is false.



You are mixing your tenses, deal with what is written.

That's a good argument for executing them now.
So you are in favour of removing safeguards that aim to prevent irreversible miscarriages of justice?

I very much doubt that given your stance on capital punishment.
But I see again that you still don't understand what you are argueing for or argueing against.

But it has been adequately shown that the alternative solution does indeed offer opportunities for the convict to get out and kill again, so the claim is true.
Since that is irrelevant as it doesn't fit the bill all you are showing is that you havn't understood the initial statement.

A one-liner, even if not meant to be funny, is not the asked-for explanation. This is no more than banter.
No, you are just failing to read.

More banter. You haven't explained anything; you've just declared it to be so and expected everyone to understand. Still waiting for you to actually explain something. All explained, you just keep missing it.

That refreshes nothing. You make declarations, but you don't show facts. Please prove the truth of your claims.

The proof there on that angle is self evident.

Still more banter. I'm waiting for you to actually show something. Anything. All you've given so far is claims.

Nope, you still havn't read and comprehended have you.

No mind-reading involved. You used a personal appelation to enforce a point, something that is only done when the user is talking down to another. Not becoming, not polite and certainly not warranted. As I said already , don't rely on your mind reading, it doesn't work.

So you say, but again you don't actually bother to explain why it is so.
It has been explained repeatedly , you have missed it from the first and still keep building on your miss instead of stopping and thinking.

Again a good argument for performing the execution now, rather than later.
No, that is irrefutable proof about the "only" being a false claim

Only, as you have pointed out, after the execution is accomplished. Indeed.

Only if you are actually jailed for the rest of your life.
Bingo:yeah:
So that's life without parole meaning life without parole:yep:
I think someone may have mentioned that repeatedly

Actually August's quote was "the only iron clad anti recidivist criminal penalty there is." Yes, your problem seems to be that you are missing on the bolded words.
All your attempts without dealing with both of those is nothing but banter and bluster.
And lets face it all of your attempts have shown that you don't get the second, as in the same way as your previous Bundy theme you are getting events out of sequence

...and as long as "without parole" can have flaws in it, it still is Which flaws?
Those you are bringing up which fall outside those defined in the statement in question or those which can be fixed.
So are those actually strawmen you are building?

Not one single counter or argument in all of that, just condescension. Really ? I thought all of them countered the positions put forward in the post.
The last bit is fitting too as "every" can have the same problems as "only" does.

@donna
Tribesman, you don't even live in the USA, so don't worry yourself with what we do with our criminals. Worry about your own. Isn't it amazing how often something along those lines is trotted out when someone is unable to counter.

[Sailor Steve]

You are mixing your tenses, deal with what is written.
You're prevaracating. Present a real argument.

So you are in favour of removing safeguards that aim to prevent irreversible miscarriages of justice?
Attack by homily. Present a real argument.

I very much doubt that given your stance on capital punishment.
But I see again that you still don't understand what you are argueing for or argueing against.
Attack by dismissal. Present a real argument.

Since that is irrelevant as it doesn't fit the bill all you are showing is that you havn't understood the initial statement.
Still more dismissal, yet still no argument.

No, you are just failing to read.
And yet again dismissal. Are you ever going to actually say anything?

All explained, you just keep missing it.
A good way to avoid actually having to present an argument, but it starts to get old.

The proof there on that angle is self evident.
It's your job to provide the proof, not tell the other person to go look.

Nope, you still havn't read and comprehended have you.
Obviously not. Why don't you try explaing it to me. With facts.

As I said already , don't rely on your mind reading, it doesn't work.
As I said already, not mind-reading. But you don't care about that, do you?

It has been explained repeatedly , you have missed it from the first and still keep building on your miss instead of stopping and thinking.
Good job of dodging actually having to explain it. You don't seem to be able to do that, do you?

No, that is irrefutable proof about the "only" being a false claim
Not irrefutable at all. But we're playing games again.

Indeed.
I throw you a bone and you bite hard. :sunny:

Bingo:yeah:
So that's life without parole meaning life without parole:yep:
But it doesn't always mean that, so it's not really a guarantee, is it?

I think someone may have mentioned that repeatedly
The problem is that it doesn't always work, so your repeated mentionings are only nice theory.

Yes, your problem seems to be that you are missing on the bolded words.
Question: How is bold different from CAPSLOCK?

All your attempts without dealing with both of those is nothing but banter and bluster.
More arrogant dismissal. Are you my teacher? Am I your student? You have yet to present a real case. Maybe when you stop talking down to people we might be able to have a real discussion. I'd like that. I don't see it ever happening, but I'd like it.

And lets face it all of your attempts have shown that you don't get the second, as in the same way as your previous Bundy theme you are getting events out of sequence
If it's obvious to you that I don't get something, perhaps rather than just tell me how obtuse I am you should write an actual treatise, with explanations, facts and reasons. It might bring about an honest debate for a change.

Which flaws?
The ones where prisoners are freed or escape. Dead prisoners don't do that.

Those you are bringing up which fall outside those defined in the statement in question or those which can be fixed.
The "only" in the original statement is based on the concept that living prisoners may find the oportunity to kill again. Dead ones can't. To use your own words, you seem to have missed that.

So are those actually strawmen you are building?
I was unaware that I was building anything. Maybe you should explain that to me as well.

Really ? I thought all of them countered the positions put forward in the post.
You asked a lot of questions. You didn't offer any counter.

[Tribesman]

Present a real argument.
Done already.
Present a real argument.
Done already.
Present a real argument.
Done already.
yet still no argument.
Done already, you missed it , you joined in without even understanding what you were defending.
And yet again dismissal. Are you ever going to actually say anything?

Its said, perhaps you need a dictionary as you seem completely lost on definitions.
A good way to avoid actually having to present an argument, but it starts to get old.
Its presented.
It's your job to provide the proof, not tell the other person to go look. The proof is provided.
Obviously not. No kidding.
Why don't you try explaing it to me. With facts.
Done, why don't you try actually reading?

As I said already, not mind-reading. But you don't care about that, do you?
You are claiming to read my mind. Not the first time either is it.
Like I said you ain't very good at it.

Good job of dodging actually having to explain it. You don't seem to be able to do that, do you?
It isn't dodging when it is already explained.

Not irrefutable at all. But we're playing games again.
Of course it is irrefutable.
If it not the only solution which can produce the same result then it cannot be the only solution.

I throw you a bone and you bite hard. Sorry, you make no sense at all there.

But it doesn't always mean that, so it's not really a guarantee, is it?
Read what is written.

The problem is that it doesn't always work, so your repeated mentionings are only nice theory.
Of course it always works and will always work, unless of course by some miracle you are able to find an individual who went on to commit a crime after they died in prison.

Question: How is bold different from CAPSLOCK?
I don't know how to break it to ya, but they are different buttons:yep:

More arrogant dismissal. Are you my teacher? Am I your student? You have yet to present a real case. Maybe when you stop talking down to people we might be able to have a real discussion. I'd like that. I don't see it ever happening, but I'd like it.
Until you actually read the words you are getting nowhere.
Until you stop throwing in red herrings and building strawmen you are not having a real discussion.

If it's obvious to you that I don't get something, perhaps rather than just tell me how obtuse I am you should write an actual treatise, with explanations, facts and reasons. It might bring about an honest debate for a change.
Should I be so bold as to again highlight what you are missing completely?
It has been explained repeatedly.

The ones where prisoners are freed or escape. Dead prisoners don't do that.
Well done. Missed by a mile again.

The "only" in the original statement is based on the concept that living prisoners may find the oportunity to kill again. Dead ones can't. To use your own words, you seem to have missed that.
I missed nothing.
What is the word you are missing again, you know the one that puts that out of the scope?
Would you like it bolded again?

I was unaware that I was building anything. Maybe you should explain that to me as well. You are attacking irrelevant things instead of dealing with what is written.
Focus.

You asked a lot of questions. You didn't offer any counter. A question can be a counter all by itself:yep:

[u crank]

http://humourspot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ArchieBunkerandaclassicRussianRoulette-28586.gif

[Sailor Steve]

Done already etc etc etc
When and where? No links, no facts, no proofs. Just talk.

Its said, perhaps you need a dictionary as you seem completely lost on definitions.
Still no proofs.

Its presented.
Not by you.

The proof is provided.
Not by you. Lots of talk, no proofs.

Done, why don't you try actually reading?
You haven't given anything to read yet.

You are claiming to read my mind. Not the first time either is it.
Like I said you ain't very good at it.
Where? I've never said anything of the kind. Sometimes you telegraph your punches, then accuse me of that. You can be obvious sometimes.

It isn't dodging when it is already explained.
Where have you explained anything? Show me.

Of course it is irrefutable.
If it not the only solution which can produce the same result then it cannot be the only solution.

If the living prisoner can escape and kill again, the you are refuted. It's that simple. You just won't admit it.

Sorry, you make no sense at all there.
Only to you. But I'll make it simple. I don't actually disagree with you as much as I seem to. So I give one example of that, and you jump on it like a dog on a bone. My problem isn't with the whole death penalty thing. My problem is with your ongoing habit of telling people they're wrong without ever actually providing any links, any proof or even any discussion. If you learned how to debate without insulting and without talking down to people it might make for some very pleasant and enlightening discussion. But you've never done that, so I can't really be sure.

Read what is written.
August was clear in his intent. You're the one who keeps trying to prove it wrong, and failing.

Of course it always works and will always work, unless of course by some miracle you are able to find an individual who went on to commit a crime after they died in prison.
You mentioned straw men? We know people don't commit crimes after they're dead. That's why you're wrong. People do go on to commit crimes after they've been incarcerated "for life". That's the failure in your argument that you keep trying to twist away from. You say that "life" is also ironclad, but it's not. Not always. So you're wrong.

I don't know how to break it to ya, but they are different buttons:yep:
But you used it for the same reason you kick others for using the capslock. So how do they fail when doing it and you don't?

Until you actually read the words you are getting nowhere.
Until you stop throwing in red herrings and building strawmen you are not having a real discussion.
Since when have you ever had a real discussion? It's always insulting and talking down to people? I'd love to have a real talk with you. As I said, I don't think you'll ever go for it.

Should I be so bold as to again highlight what you are missing completely?
It has been explained repeatedly.
Where? Show me.

Well done. Missed by a mile again.
You saying it doesn't make it so. Show me where. Show me how. Show facts. Show reasons. Show me anything. So far all you've done is contradict people. You haven't shown anything. At all.

I missed nothing.
What is the word you are missing again, you know the one that puts that out of the scope?
Playing games again? Can you just say what you mean, rather than trying to be tricky?

Would you like it bolded again?
Bold, like capslock, equals autofail.

You are attacking irrelevant things instead of dealing with what is written.
Again you choose not to present an actual case, but to insult. It's only irrelevant in your own mind.

Focus.
I'm not as slick as you. I can't focus on something that's twisting, dodging and mostly not there.

A question can be a counter all by itself:yep:
Not when it's presented in the form of an insult.

My offer of a real discussion is still open, if you think you can do it.


@ U Crank: It may not appear so, but I'm having just as much fun as you are.

Unless of course you're not having fun.

[Admiral Halsey]

Could you two stop it!? You're both adults so act like it!

[Tchocky]

They are acting like adults! Someone throw a pie for God's sake!

[Nippelspanner]

...what the hell did I just read? :doh:

As for capital punishment, many socially backward countries practice it and I am glad to live in a country that does not rely on radical principles inspired by some fairytale book(s) that are thousands of years old anymore, but a country that learned from history, partially, and at least tries to develop in these matters... like the rest of Europe as well.

As much as I understand the temptation, the wish to simply put a bullet through some guys brain who just did something terrible, there is always that inner liberal-hippie-leftist-PETA-treehugger-scum voice (because that is what you are, automatically, if against CP, right?) that tells me it's friggin' wrong.

Oh and no, life without parole is, against common believe, not more expensive as to keep someone on death row/execute him... since someone mentioned money as a factor when we talk about a human beings life (yes yes, worthless humans who gave their rights away, I know), I thought this might be interesting to know.

But since I am neither 'Murrican not do I live in the most glorious of all countries, I have to shut up it seems.
What an argument. :shifty:

[Sailor Steve]

Could you two stop it!? You're both adults so act like it!
I suppose so. It's just that it's so much fun. :oops:

[u crank]

@ U Crank: It may not appear so, but I'm having just as much fun as you are.



Oh I can tell you are.:O:

Unless of course you're not having fun.

Yes I am.:yep:

[Wolferz]

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/pie_in_face_2.jpg

Executing an overhand right.:03:

[Oberon]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e3pePogR_L8/Ujz6NOsLkdI/AAAAAAAABGA/iYGfOCzaBiU/s1600/are%2Byou.png

[Tango589]

They are acting like adults! Someone throw a pie for God's sake!

http://donjohnsonministries.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/pie-in-face.jpg

[Tribesman]

Lots of the same nonsense


You really are not doing very well.


Where? I've never said anything of the kind. Sometimes you telegraph your punches, then accuse me of that. You can be obvious sometimes.

The proof of that is in your own posts.

Where have you explained anything? Show me.

Read the topic.

If the living prisoner can escape and kill again, the you are refuted. It's that simple. You just won't admit it.

Still tilting at your strawman aren't you:yep:

You saying it doesn't make it so. Show me where. Show me how. Show facts. Show reasons. Show me anything. So far all you've done is contradict people. You haven't shown anything. At all.

Rubbish, you just went off on one without reading the initial post, the fault lies with yourself.
Only to you. But I'll make it simple. I don't actually disagree with you as much as I seem to.
I know , but the fact still remains that you are arguing on something where you have been on the backfoot from the very start and have advanced backwards at nearly every step.

So I give one example of that, and you jump on it like a dog on a bone.
Fail.

My problem isn't with the whole death penalty thing. My problem is with your ongoing habit of telling people they're wrong without ever actually providing any links, any proof or even any discussion.
Ah, so you actually off topic and just indulging in personal attacks, naughty moderator:rotfl2:

If you learned how to debate without insulting and without talking down to people it might make for some very pleasant and enlightening discussion. But you've never done that, so I can't really be sure.

You really should avoid absolutes, by now you must know how easy they are proven false.

August was clear in his intent.
Yep , crystal clear, it was that which made it so simple.

You're the one who keeps trying to prove it wrong, and failing.

What has been proven is that you havn't read his words and refuse to read his words, that is why you are failing miserably.

You mentioned straw men?
Yes, you do seem to build a lot, and spend time chasing red herrings you set loose yourself.

We know people don't commit crimes after they're dead.
Correct.

That's why you're wrong. People do go on to commit crimes after they've been incarcerated "for life".
Irrelevant.

That's the failure in your argument that you keep trying to twist away from.
No, that has been addressed, it comes back to you being on the backfoot from the start.

You say that "life" is also ironclad, but it's not. Not always. So you're wrong.

Sorry but it is in this case, so you are wrong again.

But you used it for the same reason you kick others for using the capslock. So how do they fail when doing it and you don't?

You are getting that backwards, the bold emphasised someone elses words.
People call on the god of CAPLOCK when they go all shouty emphasising their own words.

Since when have you ever had a real discussion? It's always insulting and talking down to people? I'd love to have a real talk with you. As I said, I don't think you'll ever go for it
Absolutes again, instant fail.

Where? Show me.


You are the proof, read through the topic.

Playing games again? Can you just say what you mean, rather than trying to be tricky?

Its already said, many times. Its all about the words, it all hinges on what they mean.

Bold, like capslock, equals autofail.


You had better circulate a memo about your new invention.


Again you choose not to present an actual case, but to insult. It's only irrelevant in your own mind.

It is all presented.

I'm not as slick as you. I can't focus on something that's twisting, dodging and mostly not there.

You need to focus on the initial statement, those twisty dodgy things which are not there are the strawmen and red herrings you put in yourself.

Not when it's presented in the form of an insult.

You are transferring your interpretation. That doesn't neccessarliy work.

My offer of a real discussion is still open, if you think you can do it.

For that to work you have to start afresh and fix the fundamental flaws you have carried so far since the outset.
Read the initial statement and understand exactly what the words mean.
Then you need to remove all the irrelevancies, strawmen and red herrings you introduced and work with what remains.
Though you should note that you will have practically nothing at all left when you do that.
I suppose you could fall back on some more personal attacks though if that floats your boat.

[Tribesman]

...:shifty:
Nice post, plenty of humour and very cutting points:up:

[Sailor Steve]

For that to work you have to start afresh and fix the fundamental flaws you have carried so far since the outset.
So the offer is rejected. I expected as much. Still, it's always there.

I suppose you could fall back on some more personal attacks though if that floats your boat.
:rotfl2:

Sorry, it's just that coming from you...lets just say I've had the chance to observe the best in action. :sunny:

[Wolferz]

If we really wished to sledge hammer home an ironic point for those who wish to murder other living beings, then the punishment of death for your crime/s should be the same kind of death that you perpetrated on the victim/s. Short, simple and everybody is happy.

No more arguments on the efficacy of a method of execution. It worked well enough for the murdering criminal after all.

OR...
We could start locking them in storage containers and stack them up as far as the eye can see. Would be far cheaper than boarding them in a cage.

[Tchocky]

Torches out again in General Topics.


Such brave. Many amaze.

[Sailor Steve]

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/pie_in_face_2.jpg

Executing an overhand right.:03:
Thanks! I needed that.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e3pePogR_L8/Ujz6NOsLkdI/AAAAAAAABGA/iYGfOCzaBiU/s1600/are%2Byou.png
I know I am.

http://donjohnsonministries.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/pie-in-face.jpg
Mmmmmm...banana cream! :D

[Tchocky]

Not just me that noticed that then, happens a lot in threads about criminals or people who have been suspected of wrongdoing in society and/or the laws eyes. The old mob mentality, once upon a time it would have resulted in pitchforks and torches, at least now it's just hastily typed words on a forum, for now anyway. I think that there's become a detachment from the law enforcing section of government and the society it serves, some Americans see police officers as tools of oppression, some British see the police as being corrupt and self-serving. As such there is a gut instinct to circumnavigate the due process that society created in th first place, thus taking us back to square one before the police were invented and the only way to solve crime was to commit crime or be very rich. Furthermore, the fact that mob mentality is incredibly easy to stir up in modern media, just look at the immigration issue in the UK or politics in the US, means that more frequently the law enforcement find themselves lagging behind in dispatching the justice demanded by the community, who have already formed a mob, got their pitchforks and torches together, decided who did it, how they should be executed and where and when before the police have even got into their cruiser.
Rapid and widespread public social communication = double edged sword.

Just saw this now, Oberon. Nail on the head as per usual!

[Tribesman]

So the offer is rejected. I expected as much. Still, it's always there.




Not in the slightest, but make up you own excuses if it makes you feel better.

Whats the matter, are you unwilling to address your very obvious mistakes?
Or have you still not realised that nearly all your arguments were false due to you not understanding simple words?


:rotfl2:

Sorry, it's just that coming from you...lets just say I've had the chance to observe the best in action. :sunny:
Excuse me young man, but there is a certain moderator on this forum who likes to hand out infractions for posts like yours, you really ought to watch out for him next time you pass a mirror.

[Sailor Steve]

Not in the slightest, but make up you own excuses if it makes you feel better.
So that's a no then. If you ever change your mind, just let me know.

Whats the matter, are you unwilling to address your very obvious mistakes?
Or have you still not realised that nearly all your arguments were false due to you not understanding simple words?
At least I make arguments. I challenge you to go back over your eleven years of posting and show one single instance in which you have created a real argument.

Excuse me young man, but there is a certain moderator on this forum who likes to hand out infractions for posts like yours, you really ought to watch out for him next time you pass a mirror.
You still haven't figured out what I was doing, have you?

[Tribesman]

So that's a no then. If you ever change your mind, just let me know.

Not in the slightest.
You really have a problem with words don't you.

At least I make arguments. Not in this case.

I challenge you to go back over your eleven years of posting and show one single instance in which you have created a real argument. Too easy, remember your attempt on the issue of impressment relative to the war of 1812:O:
So much for your vaunted memory eh?
You really should avoid absolutes, they are too easy to trash

You still haven't figured out what I was doing, have you Young man, you were trying to be a troll because you couldn't make a case.

[Wolferz]

Torches out again in General Topics.


Such brave. Many amaze.

Here, let me light yours for you.:D

[Sailor Steve]

Not in the slightest.
You really have a problem with words don't you.
A "yes" would be something like "I accept", or just "yes".

Not in this case.
I did lay out a case. You can argue against it, but you choose to insult instead.

Too easy, remember your attempt on the issue of impressment relative to the war of 1812:O:
Vaguely. Why don't you show me?

So much for your vaunted memory eh?
You really should avoid absolutes, they are too easy to trash
So, not being willing (I know you're able) to construct an argument, you return to insults.

Young man
And name-calling.

you were trying to be a troll because you couldn't make a case.
Not quite, but close. I was doing what you do in 99% of your posts - trolling for the sake of trolling. Trying to show you how it feels, as it were.

But then, as you say, I'm not very good at it. I bow to superior technique and expertise.

[August]

If we really wished to sledge hammer home an ironic point for those who wish to murder other living beings, then the punishment of death for your crime/s should be the same kind of death that you perpetrated on the victim/s. Short, simple and everybody is happy.

No more arguments on the efficacy of a method of execution. It worked well enough for the murdering criminal after all.

OR...
We could start locking them in storage containers and stack them up as far as the eye can see. Would be far cheaper than boarding them in a cage.

There's a reason that executions used to be public events. :yep:

[Admiral Lutjens]

My take on capital punishment is this:

Either get rid of the appeals process or get rid of capital punishment altogether. Sitting on death row for 20-30 years is nothing but a tremendous waste of time and resources that could better be used elsewhere. In the US, as those of us that are Americans know, CP varies from state to state - some states have it, whilst some don't. When I lived in Missouri a few years back, I was summoned to be a juror on a Capital trial (Missouri has death penalty, whereas my home state of Michigan doesn't) involving a man that was accused of, and later convicted of the rape and murder of a 9 year old girl.

Let that sink in a moment.

I have no children of my own, but imagine if that were your daughter? If it were my daughter, I'd want whoever took my life away from me like that to be fed to the pigs, Hannibal Lecter style. I believe in the concept of the death penalty as a deterrent, if it is able to be utilized. Locking people up and throwing away the key, sadly enough, is not a deterrent. People don't care. Same thing with these 'stand your ground' laws...people want to get rid of those and gun rights and dream of this beautiful, serene society where people shouldn't have guns or defend themselves or others.

It's all a bunch of crap. The goal and point here is, and should be, to head off crime/murder before it starts. To do that, you need a proper and effective deterrent. When politicians become the middle man in people's daily lives, it's an inherent attack on the individual. This administration and the left in this country is doing more to undo and undermine the individual and individual rights than perhaps any other president and party since Roosevelt and the New Deal.

We are stuck in reverse, and this country is sliding into the abyss of social and economic chaos because that's how the status quo maintains their grip on power.....creating a perpetual, dependent, naive society. Particularly with common core and the dumbing down of our students and children.

[Tribesman]

A "yes" would be something like "I accept", or just "yes".



.
You really are having a problem with words are you not.
See any double negative?

I did lay out a case. Yes, a deeply flawed unsustainable one which was easily countered.

You can argue against it, but you choose to insult instead.
Errrr...no. The argument was present and presented.

Vaguely. Why don't you show me?
Why? you already know for a fact that your claim was false, why not admit it instead of digging yourself deeper into a hole.

So, not being willing (I know you're able) to construct an argument, you return to insults.
Read above.

And name-calling.

You already burned your bridges there, heed your own lectures.

Not quite, but close. I was doing what you do in 99% of your posts - trolling for the sake of trolling. Trying to show you how it feels, as it were.
Fail, you should know better by now.
You need to avoid getting emotional.
Slightly backing away from you claim when you attempt to reinforce it doesn't make it any more truthful, if anything it makes it look worse.

But then, as you say, I'm not very good at it. I bow to superior technique and expertise What you are not very good at is spotting the words and removing all the irrelevant issues and strawmen you had tried to build your position upon.

If you had read what was written on the first prompt or any of the subsequent ones you wouldn't have managed to write so much nonsense.


@ August
There's a reason that executions used to be public events. :yep: Good point, if you follow the conservative Saudi and Iranian regimes and reinstate the circus element you can elevate your place on the list of rather nice countries with capital punishment.
Such a spectacle should keep the torch and pitchfork brigade happy.:yep:

[Sailor Steve]

You really are having a problem with words are you not.
See any double negative?
More prevarication, no direct answers.

Yes, a deeply flawed unsustainable one which was easily countered.
Only in your own mind. You talked a lot but you never actually countered anything.

Errrr...no. The argument was present and presented.
Where? You keep saying that but you never actually presented anything. If it's there, show it.

Why? you already know for a fact that your claim was false, why not admit it instead of digging yourself deeper into a hole.
More words. You still can't show anything. If you can, why don't you do it?

Read above.
Why? There's nothing there but claims. If you have something, show it.

You already burned your bridges there, heed your own lectures.
Where? Show me.

Fail, you should know better by now.
You need to avoid getting emotional.
What makes you think I'm emotional?

Slightly backing away from you claim when you attempt to reinforce it doesn't make it any more truthful, if anything it makes it look worse.
Backing away how? You still haven't shown anything.

What you are not very good at is spotting the words and removing all the irrelevant issues and strawmen you had tried to build your position upon.
More words. Show something real.

If you had read what was written on the first prompt or any of the subsequent ones you wouldn't have managed to write so much nonsense.
So you keep saying. What you haven't done is shown exactly what you're talking about. Anybody can make claims. Proving them is something else. You can't even show what you're talking about here, much less with the actual case.

I'm still waiting for you to present one single argument in all this. You keep attacking, but you won't show anything real.

[Tribesman]

Lots of nonsense



Darling it is all there, perhaps you need an eye test.
Though with the obvious extent of your difficulties here maybe it should be written in braile

Backing away how? You still haven't shown anything.

Simple mathematics, elementary my dear, you really are extending your problem into new fields.
Well done.

I'm still waiting for you to present one single argument in all this. You keep attacking, but you won't show anything real.
I am still waiting for you to read, until you do, everything you have written is pure bluster and nonsense
Until you read you are unable to present anything of relevance either for your position(which you don't have since you havn't read) or against mine.:know:

But its OK keep it up:rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

Darling

my dear
The more you resort to trash-talk and name-calling, the lamer you look. Rather than play games, why don't you construct an actual argurment?

it is all there, perhaps you need an eye test.
Perhaps. But if it is all there, why can't you show me?

Simple mathematics, elementary my dear, you really are extending your problem into new fields.
Well done.
More talk. You still haven't shown anything.

I am still waiting for you to read
Read what? Show me.

until you do, everything you have written is pure bluster and nonsense
Asking you for a fact or an argument is bluster and nonsense? Then prove it. Show something...anything.

Until you read you are unable to present anything of relevance either for your position(which you don't have since you havn't read) or against mine.:know:
Show me what it is you want me to read. Show something. Show anything. You haven't yet. Can you?

[Tchocky]

Lads, this might be what's called self-fulfilling argument. Take five and leave it. It's been done. Over-fisked posting only serves the two of you, and I know you're both not likely to be the first to stop. No harm in that but it may as well be useful, eh?

Of course, the capital punishment debate has been done to death (har) on this forum already. So go ahead. Not hurting anyone.

Haven't seen a single convincing argument so far that wasn't borne out of revenge fantasy, don't imagine one's going to show up. Prepared to be surprised but not exactly expectant.

Hey, at least we can un-murder an innocent person. We still have that.

[Tribesman]

The more you resort to trash-talk and name-calling, the lamer you look. Rather than play games, why don't you construct an actual argurment?







Sweetie, I am being polite:03:

Perhaps. But if it is all there, why can't you show me?

That would be because you are choosing to be blind, sorry but only you can fix that problem.

More talk. You still haven't shown anything.

Incorrect.
Count to a hundred, it really is that simple:know:

Read what? Show me.

how many times have you already been shown?
Well into double figures a long time ago isn't it.:yep:

Asking you for a fact or an argument is bluster and nonsense? Then prove it. Show something...anything.

It is proven, asking for facts repeatedly after they have been presented is pure nonsense.

Show me what it is you want me to read. Show something. Show anything. You haven't yet. Can you?
My my, you are a bold one aren't you:rotfl2:



So then young man lets see if we can get those little grey cells working, lets get the synapses snapping.
Elementary deduction so far, but for the definitive answer I need your input mon ami.
After removing the other possibilities due to them not fitting the scene we are left with only two remaining possible explainations.
So which of them is it my dear?
Is it
(A) You havn't got the faintest idea and are just trolling.
(B) You know you are wrong and are just trolling.

[Jimbuna]

I'm beginning to wonder if I've let this go on longer than I should have.

I expect civility from anyone that posts and certainly won't tolerate any name calling or insults.

That is my clearly stated position and one I will act on if necessary as of now.

[Sailor Steve]

Since Tribesman has stooped to continual name-calling and a totally dismissive manner, and yet for all this has adamantly refused to construct a real argument or link to even one of the things he's claimed has been said, I have to assume that he has nothing more to offer.

Out of deference to Admiral Halsey and others who've become annoyed at me for this exchange, I'll call my part in it done and bow out as gracefully as I can.

My apologies to all concerned.

[u crank]

Out of deference to Admiral Halsey and others who've become annoyed at me for this exchange, I'll call my part in it done and bow out as gracefully as I can.


I wasn't annoyed.....amused...yes.

My apologies to all concerned.

I'd be happy if the other guy apologized. :yep:

[Tango589]

I'd be happy if the other guy apologized. :yep:
:rotfl2:

[Tribesman]

Since Tribesman has stooped to continual name-calling and a totally dismissive manner, and yet for all this has adamantly refused to construct a real argument or link to even one of the things he's claimed has been said, I have to assume that he has nothing more to offer.

Out of deference to Admiral Halsey and others who've become annoyed at me for this exchange, I'll call my part in it done and bow out as gracefully as I can.

My apologies to all concerned.
It is totally dismissive as someone who cannot read what they are supporting cannot make any argument in support of it, only bluster and a big pile of trolling.
Something so lacking in substance can only be dismissed when the person repeatedly refuses to address the fundamental flaw in their approach
Quite a feat you managed really, as there was only a couple of words in a single line statement that you had to read.
A sensible person would have read the words and understood them before they went off on one.
A sensible person would have paused for thought when he was repeatedly told to read them.

[Onkel Neal]

I would like to point out, posting with a lot of sarcasm and disrespect for fellow members, on a routine basis, can lead to the brig.