Death Penalty to... [Story from Digg]

[wyatt23]

[Before you post... please think through your thoughts as they very well may offend someone in the forum. please take how others feel into consideration before you post. not just for this thread but for all as well.]

I recently came across this story on digg.com [my #2 fav site :p ] and it intrigued me, becasue, well, i don't have a stance on it. The Headline is along the lines... legislation gaining headway for pedophiles to receive the death penalty. the link is:
http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/Proposals_to_Execute_Pedophiles_Making_Headway_in_US

read the story just to get a take on what's going on in the world, and if your post is going to be offensive, remember what your mother said about not having something nice to say. :)

[skunk]

There is no valid reason to commit judicial murder.

[leekohler]

Pretty soon everything will be punishable by the death penalty, or everyone will be in prison for life the way our laws keep piling up.

Pedophiles? Life in prison. It's a tough call though. A lot of people would like to see them put to death, myself included. But I can't say that it's a good thing to do.

[zap2]

Its an interesting question...I've yet to come to a firm place on the death Penalty....its something I think about alot, but just can't find a solution to it I like.



As for pedophiles being killed...again its hard, and I have not put enough though into the issue to people able to make an educated choice on were I stand....so for know I don't want to support either idea. My first idea is that is a bit harsh...live in prision might be a better solution, their away from kids, and still alive.

[66217]

There is no valid reason to commit judicial murder.

If someone is trying to kill you, would you kill him before he does so?

[Queso]

If someone is trying to kill you, would you kill him before he does so?
Self defence during their attempt is one thing, but if I decided to kill him before he acted it would be me committing murder.

I completely agree with skunk. The state should not have the right to take the life of its citizens under any circumstances, however abhorrent their behaviour.

[66217]

Self defence during their attempt is one thing, but if I decided to kill him before he acted it would be me committing murder.

I completely agree with skunk. The state should not have the right to take the life of its citizens under any circumstances, however abhorrent their behaviour.

I see Death Penalty as the self-defense of the whole society. And it is the government the one who most implement it.

[adroit]

Before you try to convince me that pedofiles deserve the death penalty, you're going to have to start with convincing me anybody deserves the death penalty.

[Queso]

I see Death Penalty as the self-defense of the whole society. And it is the government the one who most implement it.
It's only self-defence if the killing is carried out whilst the perpetrator of an act has the ability to seriously hurt or kill others at that moment. For instance, if a crazed gunman running through a shopping centre gets shot dead by the police then nobody can really complain.

If it happens outside of the spur of the moment it is premeditated murder, and that's the same whether it's a court committing the act. Also courts are not infallible and governments most certainly are not. If you trust them with that power, you accept that innocent people will be put to death and actively support it.

So by calling for the death penalty you are guilty of conspiracy to murder. Best you go turn yourself in now.

[fotografica]

As far as pedophiles,I believe that life imprisonment would be far worse than the dealth penalty.
For the death penalty itself,with the way the judicial system is in this country,I'm afraid there are probably alot of innocent poor people on death row..

[psychofreak]

The death penalty is sickening...no matter what...at all...however bad the crime...

[66217]

Before you try to convince me that pedofiles deserve the death penalty, you're going to have to start with convincing me anybody deserves the death penalty.

Death Penalty is a HUGE theme that can take a lot of time to discuss over the internet. So I'll just say some of my opinions:

1. Punishment ought to deter future crime. DP makes few people want to make a crime that would merit DP. I believe that DP ends abolishing itself when used correctly. With time people won't want to end sentenced to DP, and with time DP would start to be less and less necessary.

2. As I said, DP is the defense that the state offers to the community.

3. DP is not murder. Killing, intrinsically, is something wrong, but this does not mean it is not justifiable in some occasions. Self defense is one of this occasions. War could be another example, it is intrinsically incorrect, but is justifiable to bring peace to a community.

[psychofreak]

To what extent could this be taken: people who rape children only...people who photograph naked children...people who download those naked pictures?

If the government starts getting more on a killing high, it could get too out of hand (maybe it has already)...

[macmama]

There is no valid reason to commit judicial murder.
Well put, Skunk. This legislation is appalling.

[adroit]

Well as far as I'm concerned, the death penaly is a sign of a savage, uncivilised society with weak morals.

I can't for the life of me see how those who most support the death penalty are also most likely to call themselves christain. (not speaking about anyone here, just the overall tie between "death penalty" <--> "Republican" <--> "Christains")

[geese]

Death Penalty is a HUGE theme that can take a lot of time to discuss over the internet. So I'll just say some of my opinions:

1. Punishment ought to deter future crime. DP makes few people want to make a crime that would merit DP. I believe that DP ends abolishing itself when used correctly. With time people won't want to end sentenced to DP, and with time DP would start to be less and less necessary.

2. As I said, DP is the defense that the state offers to the community.

3. DP is not murder. Killing, intrinsically, is something wrong, but this does not mean it is not justifiable in some occasions. Self defense is one of this occasions. War could be another example, it is intrinsically incorrect, but is justifiable to bring peace to a community.

1. DP does not work as a deterrent in the USA. Unless i am mistaken, there is no proof that DP is detering the committing of serious crimes in the USA.

2. How is DP any more of a defence then lifetime imprisonment?

3. An arguable point. But again, how do you deal with miscarrages of justice?

[66217]

It's only self-defence if the killing is carried out whilst the perpetrator of an act has the ability to seriously hurt or kill others at that moment. For instance, if a crazed gunman running through a shopping centre gets shot dead by the police then nobody can really complain.

Self-defense refers to actions taken by a person to prevent another person from causing harm to one's self, one's property or one's home.

In this case it is the government the one providing defense to the community.

If it happens outside of the spur of the moment it is premeditated murder, and that's the same whether it's a court committing the act. Also courts are not infallible and governments most certainly are not. If you trust them with that power, you accept that innocent people will be put to death and actively support it.


Then killing the person at the moment would also be incorrect, since you don't know for certain if that guy is going to make a crime. For example, the guy the police killed in an airport because he started acting aggressively. (link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/airplane.gunshot/index.html))

Or the guy at London that when the police called him to stop and search his backpack started running from the police and the police killed him. Resulting that the guy was only an illegal brazilian living in London.

And any killing is premeditated, just that with DP you have more time to premeditate.

So by calling for the death penalty you are guilty of conspiracy to murder. Best you go turn yourself in now.
:rolleyes:

[Queso]

Self-defense refers to actions taken by a person to prevent another person from causing harm to one's self, one's property or one's home.

In this case it is the government the one providing defense to the community.
The government loves to make us all feel that we need protection. It's mostly propaganda. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could kick them, least of all with someone else's life.

Then killing the person at the moment would also be incorrect, since you don't know for certain if that guy is going to make a crime. For example, the guy the police killed in an airport because he started acting aggressively. (link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/airplane.gunshot/index.html))

Or the guy at London that when the police called him to stop and search his backpack started running from the police and the police killed him. Resulting that the guy was only an illegal brazilian living in London.
Jean-Charles De Menezes was not running from the police. He walked as usual from his home to a Tube station, boarded a train and was brutally gunned down for it. This example proves my point rather than yours. The apparatus of the state is made up of human beings who make mistakes. Giving them power to kill means innocent people being killed, then telling blatant lies to cover their tracks.

And any killing is premeditated, just that with DP you have more time to premeditate.
Twaddle. Accidentally killing someone whilst fighting them off is not pre-meditated, neither is a doctor making a mistake on an operating table and losing a patient.

[kalisphoenix]

Death Penalty is a HUGE theme that can take a lot of time to discuss over the internet. So I'll just say some of my opinions:

1. Punishment ought to deter future crime. DP makes few people want to make a crime that would merit DP. I believe that DP ends abolishing itself when used correctly. With time people won't want to end sentenced to DP, and with time DP would start to be less and less necessary.

Does the death penalty deter crime? Surveys say: No. Ding ding ding.

2. As I said, DP is the defense that the state offers to the community.

It's not defense. It's retribution. Calling the death penalty defense is like saying rape is a good way to get a date.

3. DP is not murder. Killing, intrinsically, is something wrong, but this does not mean it is not justifiable in some occasions. Self defense is one of this occasions. War could be another example, it is intrinsically incorrect, but is justifiable to bring peace to a community.

The death penalty is murder -- the complete and intentional elimination of one individual by others. Is it justifiable? I would argue that it isn't, since it's retributive justice, and retribution doesn't really seem to benefit anyone in a meaningful way. It's not rehabilitating, since it basically eliminates the possibility of a person ever being rehabilitated. So why is it necessary? Because we "don't need that person around anymore?" Because "they're no good to society?" Be wary of utilitarian justifications for these sorts of things, because they quickly annihilate any concept of justice that I would like to see in the world.

There are ways to keep people from killing other people or screwing children. We deprive them of their freedom by locking 'em up in a big cage. A far worse punishment than death, in my humble opinion.

[geese]

Self-defense refers to actions taken by a person to prevent another person from causing harm to one's self, one's property or one's home.

In this case it is the government the one providing defense to the community.


But the crime has been committed already! Self-defence is not an issue after the crime! Whether its lifetime imprisonment, or death, the criminal isnt going to commit the same crime again/.


Then killing the person at the moment would also be incorrect, since you don't know for certain if that guy is going to make a crime. For example, the guy the police killed in an airport because he started acting aggressively. (link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/airplane.gunshot/index.html))

Or the guy at London that when the police called him to stop and search his backpack started running from the police and the police killed him. Resulting that the guy was only an illegal brazilian living in London.


What is your point exactly? You were not eluding to legal pre-meditated killings in your previous posts were you? I dont think anyone here would disagree that you shouldnt kill people before the crime has been committed, unless under clearly exeptional circumstances.

Clarification- it turned out that (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm)Menezes wasnt even running from the police. Wasn't even challenged or approached by the police. Just shot.

[66217]

Jean-Charles De Menezes was not running from the police. He walked as usual from his home to a Tube station, boarded a train and was brutally gunned down for it. This example proves my point rather than yours. The apparatus of the state is made up of human beings who make mistakes. Giving them power to kill means innocent people being killed, then telling blatant lies to cover their tracks.

Agreed, innocent people of course are going to die at some point. But I prefer the state hunting down the criminals and maybe kill an innocent in the process, than having the state doing nothing and the bad guys killing innocent people.
Maybe we have different points of view because of the country we live. For example, in Mexico there is no way in hell you are going to be able to keep a guy from the mafia (drug-dealers) in jail. They buy the ticket out either by money or by force.
So the best option I see, is that the apprehended drug-dealers must be sentenced to DP. But DP is not allowed in Mexico, the maximum penalty is 40 years of jail, and if you behave good, 30 years. God, I hate the politicians of Mexico, they just don't use their brains.

Twaddle. Accidentally killing someone whilst fighting them off is not pre-meditated, neither is a doctor making a mistake on an operating table and losing a patient.

What I meant is killing while in defense. You don't kill a guy accidentally while fighting (the times this happens are very few). Killing someone is not that easy, after all.

[66217]

But the crime has been committed already! Self-defence is not an issue after the crime! Whether its lifetime imprisonment, or death, the criminal isnt going to commit the same crime again/.

Of course it is an issue. That guy that already made a crime has a lot of more probabilities to commit another crime, so you must defend the society against him.

What is your point exactly? You were not eluding to legal pre-meditated killings in your previous posts were you? I dont think anyone here would disagree that you shouldnt kill people before the crime has been committed, unless under clearly exeptional circumstances.

Sorry, didn't understood what you are asking.:o

[psychofreak]

Of course it is an issue. That guy that already made a crime has a lot of more probabilities to commit another crime, so you must defend the society against him.
And we do this by putting him in prison, not by killing him...

Every time an educated society agrees on killing people for their actions when imprisonment is a viable option it is looked back by history as absurd and inhumane.

[66217]

And we do this by putting him in prison, not by killing him...

Every time an educated society agrees on killing people for their actions it is looked back by history as absurd and inhumane.

I think most people don't think of the USA as inhumane and absurd when they attacked Germany in the war. And they killed a lot of people. It was a necessary thing to make.

It is a shame we have to get to the point of killing someone to have peace, but sometimes it is necessary.

[SMM]

This is one of the few subjects I have never been able to find an opinion I feel comfortable with. My sense tells me that killing is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Incarceration for life is about the only sure way society can be safe from captured, and convicted, evil people, if we do not execute them. That puts a large burden on taxpayers to house, feed and care for them. Maybe that is not too dear a price to pay for a clear conscience.

I think capital punishment is not really done as a deterrent, like many believe. I think it is primarily done for revenge. From the victim's perspective, that is justification enough, and who can blame them? Can a humane society condone executions for that reason alone? I do not think so. However, we see considerable evidence that suggests segments of society do not embrace 'humane' as a virtue. Texas is a prime example.

[psychofreak]

I think most people don't think of the USA as inhumane and absurd when they attacked Germany in the war. And they killed a lot of people. It was a necessary thing to make. I now edited my post to clarify what I meant to say...

[66217]

Does the death penalty deter crime? Surveys say: No. Ding ding ding.

In fact, this is something very difficult to prove.

Would you say that jail deters crimes?

Still, jails seem to be missing something, since the crime rates are still high.
Maybe DP is not the best or only solution, but for me it is part of the solution. Just as jails are part, DP is also.

I could present you this statistics to prove DP correct, but I know that this statistics are far for making DP totally correct, just as the ones that say DP does not deter crime.

During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University said:

"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction."
Notes Dudley Sharp of the criminal-justice reform group Justice For All:
"From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. "

[66217]

I think capital punishment is not really done as a deterrent, like many believe. I think it is primarily done for revenge.

I exclude myself of being pro-DP because of revenge.

Doing it for only revenge makes you even more detestable than the one you are punishing.

[wyatt23]

it just upsets me that this legislation is primarily focused in southern states. it gives the south a big negative to blue states [and those logically thinking red ones] and tt gives the united states a big negative to the rest of the world. texas for example is working harder to institute the death penalty than most states are trying to abolish it!

i don't think pedophiles should be put to death tho; because frankly, no one should be put to death.

[VoodooDaddy]

Self defence during their attempt is one thing, but if I decided to kill him before he acted it would be me committing murder.

I completely agree with skunk. The state should not have the right to take the life of its citizens under any circumstances, however abhorrent their behaviour.


Obviously you and your ilk have never had a loved one murdered :rolleyes:

BTW, if the DP was enforced more stringently, if these scumbags didnt get to sit on death row for 25yrs while they play out 100 appeals, I believe it would be a deterrent.

[macmama]

Obviously you and your ilk have never had a loved one murdered :rolleyes:
Wrong, VoodooDaddy. I can't speak for everyone, but having a victim of murder in my family didn't change my mind on what is right and what's not.

[.Andy]

Obviously you and your ilk have never had a loved one murdered :rolleyes:
But unfortunately it's your loved ones that are the most likley to be doing the murdering of you or your loved ones. So in the end it just ends up being the state sanctioned murder of more loved ones. And then occasionally it turns out that the loved one that was executed for killing a loved one was actually innocent and it turned out to be another loved one that was the murderer. So that loved one needs to be executed too.

[skunk]

I think most people don't think of the USA as inhumane and absurd when they attacked Germany in the war.Germany declared war on the USA.

[skunk]

Obviously you and your ilk have never had a loved one murdered :rolleyes:"You and your ilk"? (a) You are wrong (b) wtf?

BTW, if the DP was enforced more stringently, if these scumbags didnt get to sit on death row for 25yrs while they play out 100 appeals, I believe it would be a deterrent.You mean if even more people were executed who had been unjustly convicted, the world would be a better place? Your world, maybe.

[VoodooDaddy]

Wrong, VoodooDaddy. I can't speak for everyone, but having a victim of murder in my family didn't change my mind on what is right and what's not.

I was pro DP before my sister was mudered, and Im still for it. I can understand why ppl are against it, but I certainly cant comprehend ppl that are still against it after someone kills one of your family members. But thats up to you I guess. I just can not justify a piece of **** pleading down murder to manslaughter, getting 40yrs, immediately reduced to 20, and probably only serving 12 in the end. Complete and total ********.

But unfortunately it's your loved ones that are the most likley to be doing the murdering of you or your loved ones. .

WTF is this suppose to mean???



You mean if even more people were executed who had been unjustly convicted, the world would be a better place? Your world, maybe.

Oh gimme a break. The "unjustly convicted"?? Youve been watching too much Shawshank Redemption, they all are innocent (besides Red), the "lawyers ****ed em."

[skunk]

WTF is this suppose to mean??? It means that statistically you are far more likely to be murdered by someone you know.

[hulugu]

There are several points I'd like to touch on.

First, as has been pointed out by the book Freakonomics, decreases in crime often have little to do with "tough on crime" politics, but rather play into social-economic qualities, including the relationship between things like abortion and education levels. Furthermore, as has been noted many other times, correlation does not imply causation.

Second, the problem with the Death Penalty is, as was once pointed out to me by a noted legal scholar, more about retribution than anything else. And because of this inherent emotional context most people aren't prepared to make the logical analysis necessary to assess the death penalty. Thus, someone who has had a loved one murdered is exactly the wrong person to assess the necessity of the death penalty. The law shouldn't be about emotion, though it often is, but about the application of logic. The brain and not the heart, cold as it may sound.

Third, the death penalty cannot be used as a hammer to hit every nail. Using it against pedophiles, though I find them destestable, is an invitation to a Constitutional disaster. How do we discern the difference between the active child-molester who terrorizes his victims for years and the man who downloads image-enhanced pictures of models pretending to be children? And what do we do about statutory-rape?

The application of the death penalty should be rare and specific, if ever used, and personally I'd rather the state pay to keep these guys off the streets than execute people because it convenient and a cost-savings for faltering state budgets.

Interestingly enough, there's also a correlation between crime rates and a state's application of the death penalty.

[hulugu]

I was pro DP before my sister was mudered, and Im still for it...

That sucks, and I'm sorry for your lost, but nothing the state can do will bring your sister back or salve your pain.

Oh gimme a break. The "unjustly convicted"?? Youve been watching too much Shawshank Redemption, they all are innocent (besides Red), the "lawyers ****ed em."

Are you suggesting that no one has been unjustly convicted? As of May there have been 127 exonerations across the country. Link (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6)
Furthermore, in February a report was issued that urged a moratorium on executions in Indiana because of a series of failures and procedural foul-ups. Link (http://www.abanet.org/abanet/media/release/news_release.cfm?releaseid=82).

[.Andy]

I was pro DP before my sister was mudered, and Im still for it. I can understand why ppl are against it, but I certainly cant comprehend ppl that are still against it after someone kills one of your family members. But thats up to you I guess. I just can not justify a piece of **** pleading down murder to manslaughter, getting 40yrs, immediately reduced to 20, and probably only serving 12 in the end. Complete and total ********.
Hooray for internet anecdotes :rolleyes:. True or not you've got to do better than appeal to emotions to bolster your argument.

Oh gimme a break. The "unjustly convicted"?? Youve been watching too much Shawshank Redemption, they all are innocent (besides Red), the "lawyers ****ed em."
You've got 100% confidence that the legal system gets every case right every single time? If you do I'd suggest it was completely unfounded. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6)

[Queso]

Agreed, innocent people of course are going to die at some point. But I prefer the state hunting down the criminals and maybe kill an innocent in the process, than having the state doing nothing and the bad guys killing innocent people.
Maybe we have different points of view because of the country we live. For example, in Mexico there is no way in hell you are going to be able to keep a guy from the mafia (drug-dealers) in jail. They buy the ticket out either by money or by force.
So the best option I see, is that the apprehended drug-dealers must be sentenced to DP. But DP is not allowed in Mexico, the maximum penalty is 40 years of jail, and if you behave good, 30 years. God, I hate the politicians of Mexico, they just don't use their brains.
So you are going to trust the same political and judicial system you see as corrupt to dispense justice against those they are too corrupt to currently fight?

What exactly do you think this is going to accomplish? At most you'll get a few show trials, but the real villians will continue to go free and therefore the core problem will never be solved.

[66217]

Interestingly enough, there's also a correlation between crime rates and a state's application of the death penalty.

That graph is useless. Every state in the union is different. These differences include the populations, number of cities, and yes, the crime rates. Strongly urbanized states are more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are more rural, such as those that lack capital punishment. The states that have capital punishment are compelled to have it due to their higher crime rates, not the other way around.

So you are going to trust the same political and judicial system you see as corrupt to dispense justice against those they are too corrupt to currently fight?

What exactly do you think this is going to accomplish? At most you'll get a few show trials, but the real villians will continue to go free and therefore the core problem will never be solved.

You definitely need to come to Mexico and see how this guys (drug dealers) kill each other an innocent people.
Mexican politicians are corrupt in the sense of stealing money, etc. In the case of doing nothing against the drug-dealers the cause is that if they do something they die. You cannot put a drug-dealer in jail here in Mexico, it's almost impossible.

[VoodooDaddy]

It means that statistically you are far more likely to be murdered by someone you know.

So what? They should get the death penalty.


That sucks, and I'm sorry for your lost, but nothing the state can do will bring your sister back or salve your pain.



Are you suggesting that no one has been unjustly convicted?

So basically our legal system says that 12yrs of incarceration is all that a life is worth. It makes me want to puke. BTW, it WOULD make me feel better is that piece of **** was 6 feet under and not breathing the same air I breath.

Of course I dont believe that no one ever has been convicted and they were innocent. However, that is a very very very minute percentage. I dont have numbers but Id wager a bet that less than half a percent of those on death row are innocent. Still, this is not a good excuse to eliminate the DP.

Hooray for internet anecdotes :rolleyes:. True or not you've got to do better than appeal to emotions to bolster your argument.



So you think Im not telling the truth about my sister? Well go **** yourself *******. God forbid you ever have to go through that pain someday.

[aquajet]

So basically our legal system says that 12yrs of incarceration is all that a life is worth. It makes me want to puke. BTW, it WOULD make me feel better is that piece of **** was 6 feet under and not breathing the same air I breath.


So it's purely for the retribution factor then.

It's outrageous considering it doesn't really deter anything, doesn't bring back the victim and there's a chance that an innocent person could get caught in the crossfire.

[Queso]

You definitely need to come to Mexico and see how this guys (drug dealers) kill each other an innocent people.
Mexican politicians are corrupt in the sense of stealing money, etc. In the case of doing nothing against the drug-dealers the cause is that if they do something they die. You cannot put a drug-dealer in jail here in Mexico, it's almost impossible.
So if it's impossible to put them in jail now, how will it be possible to execute them if the death penalty is introduced? The problems your country faces are not about the current punishments being too lax, more that nobody is enforcing the laws you already have.

[VoodooDaddy]

So it's purely for the retribution factor then.

It's outrageous considering it doesn't really deter anything, doesn't bring back the victim and there's a chance that an innocent person could get caught in the crossfire.

Well thats your opinion. I disagree so Ill leave it at that.

[kalisphoenix]

In fact, this is something very difficult to prove.

Which states have the highest incidence of gruesome (ie, capital) murder?

Would you say that jail deters crimes?

No. Don't we have under 5&#37; of the world's population and something like 20% of its prisoners?

Still, jails seem to be missing something, since the crime rates are still high.

Yep.

It's interesting to note that you show graphs and statistics. What precisely are they intended to show? I seem to recall learning in one sociology class or another that marriage rates have declined and ages of first marriage have increased roughly in correlation to the number of capital punishments in the graph you cited. Do marriages deter gruesome murder?

If capital punishment significantly detered murder (to the extent that it would compensate for the DP's ethical failings), and its absence acted as a "hey, go ahead and kill whoever you want" like pro-DP theorists seem to believe, then France would be a lot like, well, how Iraq is.

Keep in mind that we're talking about murderers here, not Joe and Frank from the Apple Store. These are some pretty twisted people by default, especially the ones who commit murders gruesome enough to warrant the death penalty (ie, raping and killing kids, serially killing, spree killing, etc). These aren't guys who flipped after catching their wives in bed with Joe and Frank, or Fido for that matter. These people are about as close as it gets to evil, in the brutish, filthy sense of the word.

Do you really think a savage murderer would say, "well, I could rape this 12-year-old with a bowie knife, strangle him with his own intestines, and then arrange it all in a multicolored tribute to the quintessential Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album... but no, I might get the death penalty?" No, that doesn't make sense.

Do you really think that child molesters sit in their kiddie porn dungeons at night and say "I could have sex with an eight-year-old... but I might get the death penalty?" That doesn't make very much sense either. The people are fundamentally deranged, incurably screwed-up in the head, to think that sex with an eight-year-old is excusable, permissible, or even pleasureable... much less a Fun Thing to Do. Saying that the death penalty would deter them is saying that they're capable of rationally balancing these acts and their consequence, which I simply don't believe to be the case.

I should make clear that I hate murderers and think they deserve to die. I hate child molesters and think that they are guilty of the greatest human sin imaginable -- the (possibly total and permanent) destruction of a child, not to mention that they disgust the hell out of me just on a "WTF" level. Do they deserve to die? I think so, and I'd be first in line to pull the trigger for a good number of these bastards. I'm not big on mankind in general, considering the human race to be largely composed of idiots ;) So why waste air, food, water, and land housing these monsters?

But I don't believe in capital punishment. I am an anarchist, and so I believe that saying "Government possesses rights that individuals do not have" is dangerous and fallacious thinking. To make it clearer, "yes, I would travel back in time and kill Baby Hitler, but I do not believe the government should do the same thing." When I think of the term "government," what comes to mind is "faceless, opaque, irresponsible, and unaccountable" -- those terms in an argument about anyone's life scare the hell out of me :)

[Lyle]

I can understand why people are against [the death penalty], but I certainly can't comprehend people that are still against it after someone kills one of your family members. But that's up to you I guess. I just can not justify a piece of **** pleading down murder to manslaughter, getting 40 yrs., immediately reduced to 20, and probably only serving 12 in the end.First of all, you and your family have my sympathies. I can completely understand that you would want revenge against the person(s) who killed your sister; I think that I'd probably feel the same way if I were in that situation.

Having said that, it sounds like you're setting up a pretty extreme set of choices -- that someone is either in favor of capital punishment, or they're in favor of just letting killers off scot free -- and neither of those represent my position. Based on my Christian beliefs, I am opposed to the death penalty, but I am "pro" life in prison with no possibility for parole (for murderers).

[skunk]

So what? They should get the death penalty.I was clarifying a point. But I also disagree strongly.

So basically our legal system says that 12yrs of incarceration is all that a life is worth. It makes me want to puke. BTW, it WOULD make me feel better is that piece of **** was 6 feet under and not breathing the same air I breath.As sorry as I feel for your loss, it is precisely the level of raw emotion in you which makes you the last person I would ask for a considered judgment.

So you think Im not telling the truth about my sister? Well go **** yourself *******. God forbid you ever have to go through that pain someday.I'm sure you realise that is not how .Andy meant it. You are bringing "anecdotal evidence" to the table, which is selected, not necessarily representative examples, and not an appropriate statistical basis to construct an opinion upon. Nobody is trying to downplay your pain.

I concur with Lyle above, though without the Christian beliefs bit.

[BoyBach]

I abhor the idea of capital punishment and find it totally indefensible.


As an interesting addition to the story:

Hundreds of prisoners serving life sentences in Italy have called on President Giorgio Napolitano to bring back the death penalty.

Their request was published as a letter in the daily newspaper La Repubblica.

Italy has almost 1,300 prisoners serving life terms, of whom 200 have served more than 20 years.

Italy has been at the forefront of the fight against capital punishment and recently lobbied the UN Security Council to table a moratorium on it.

But at home some of the country's longest serving prisoners want the death penalty re-introduced.

- BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6707865.stm)

[xsedrinam]

Lots of information and an interesting Death Penalty Quiz (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=557&scid=60#A.10F) if anyone's interested.

With sympathies to anyone who has lost a loved one the result of a violent crime, there are misconceptions about Capital Punishment. I thought Questions 1, 4 and 8 provided some interesting insight on the issue.

Question 1: The death penalty saves taxpayers money because it is cheaper to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life.

(False) Although the costs of incarceration are expensive (about $25,000 per year per inmate), that amounts to $750,000 to $1,000,000 depending on whether a person lives 30 or 40 years after his or her sentencing. The death penalty, on the other hand, costs an additional $2 million per execution.

Question 4: Since the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S., very few people have been released from death row because they were innocent.

(False) There have now been 124 people released from death row after they were exonerated. Thus, for every 8 executions carried out, there has been one person formerly death on row who is now deemed innocent.

Question 8: When the police chiefs of the U.S. were polled on their views about ways to lower the crime rate, only 1% named the death penalty as their top priority in reducing violent crime.

(True) According to a Peter Hart Research Poll conducted in 1995 of police chiefs around the country, the officers named such measures as reducing drug abuse, a better economy, and controlling guns as more important than the death penalty in reducing violent crime.

[66217]

It's interesting to note that you show graphs and statistics. What precisely are they intended to show?

I don't pretend to show anything at all. As I said, DP is very difficult to prove either totally wrong or totally correct with statistics.
I do find the graph interesting, but many other factors different from DP could have changed the murders in those years.

I seem to recall learning in one sociology class or another that marriage rates have declined and ages of first marriage have increased roughly in correlation to the number of capital punishments in the graph you cited. Do marriages deter gruesome murder?

It would be interesting to see statistics about this. But I should be very complex to analyze.
It all depends if your wife send you to sleep to the couch every weekend and she spends all the money buying shoes, clothes, shoes, clothes and more shoes.:D

But I don't believe in capital punishment. I am an anarchist, and so I believe that saying "Government possesses rights that individuals do not have" is dangerous and fallacious thinking. To make it clearer, "yes, I would travel back in time and kill Baby Hitler, but I do not believe the government should do the same thing." When I think of the term "government," what comes to mind is "faceless, opaque, irresponsible, and unaccountable" -- those terms in an argument about anyone's life scare the hell out of me :)

It would be great to have a perfect government, but that would never happen. What I believe is that we should trust the government (not blindly) to do their job, doing all we can to make them choose the correct decisions.

[66217]

So if it's impossible to put them in jail now, how will it be possible to execute them if the death penalty is introduced? The problems your country faces are not about the current punishments being too lax, more that nobody is enforcing the laws you already have.

Being the biggest punishment 40 years in jail (and easily reduced to 25-30 years) is not lax???:confused:

I do agree with you that one of the problems is that the government is not enforcing the law.
But the drug-dealers are a problem that cannot be solved without eliminating them, these are persons that have lost any respect for the human life. And they cannot be put in jail.
Their DP must not be the ones that takes 1 years to make, they must be more quickly, 1 month maximum.

[.Andy]

So you think Im not telling the truth about my sister? Well go **** yourself *******. God forbid you ever have to go through that pain someday.
Go and re-read my post - you seem to be having comprehension issues. If you're sister was murdered then I'm sorry for your loss. However If you're going to pull your sister out as a anecdote to make the point in argument that you have some insight and your opinion holds more weight than others expect to be rebutted. You're experience is by no means unique and it does not give your argument that society should be killing off people any weight AT ALL. How do you know I haven't a had a family member killed by a drunk driver in 2004?

And your profanity and name calling doesn't help - it just makes you look angry and irrational. People might draw the conclusion that vengence is your motivator.

[Queso]

Being the biggest punishment 40 years in jail (and easily reduced to 25-30 years) is not lax???:confused:
I meant that the punishments were already severe enough. What is needed is an increase in the likelihood of a criminal being caught at all, and more successful prosecutions for those that are. The penalties are not the hole in the system.

I do agree with you that one of the problems is that the government is not enforcing the law.
But the drug-dealers are a problem that cannot be solved without eliminating them, these are persons that have lost any respect for the human life. And they cannot be put in jail.
Their DP must not be the ones that takes 1 years to make, they must be more quickly, 1 month maximum.
One question. What exactly are you advocating? A death penalty or death squads?

[66217]

I meant that the punishments were already severe enough. What is needed is an increase in the likelihood of a criminal being caught at all, and more successful prosecutions for those that are. The penalties are not the hole in the system.


One question. What exactly are you advocating? A death penalty or death squads?

Both. A mixture of both.

[VoodooDaddy]

Ppl seem to think that Im only for the DP because of my emotion related to my sister being murdered. Thats not the case at all. I was for it before she died, Im for it just as much now.

I see no redeeming value in a person that takes someones life in a crime. It sickens me to read stories about ppl that beat a child to death, an infant, and get off with aggrevated child abuse or manslaughter. It sickens me when some junkie robs a convienence store and blows away the clerk over a few bucks, then gets off with 20yrs, but can be out "with good behavior" in 12. With good behavior? Are you kidding me?

In our society, the life that was taken ALWAYS takes a backseat to the perp that took the life and I dont get it.

[VoodooDaddy]

And your profanity and name calling doesn't help - it just makes you look angry and irrational.

Well when you say "True or not" and use the :rolleyes: after that insinuating Im lying, you arent going to get a polite reply from me, sorry.

[skunk]

Well when you say "True or not" and use the :rolleyes: after that insinuating Im lying, you arent going to get a polite reply from me, sorry.Your suffering is irrelevant to the argument.

[.Andy]

Ppl seem to think that Im only for the DP because of my emotion related to my sister being murdered. Thats not the case at all. I was for it before she died, Im for it just as much now.
No I don't think you are for the DP because of your sister. You stated that in your post. You posted about your sisters death because it was a shallow, emotive attempt to curry sympathy and one up your position in the argument for the death penalty.

I see no redeeming value in a person that takes someones life in a crime. It sickens me to read stories about ppl that beat a child to death, an infant, and get off with aggrevated child abuse or manslaughter. It sickens me when some junkie robs a convienence store and blows away the clerk over a few bucks, then gets off with 20yrs, but can be out "with good behavior" in 12. With good behavior? Are you kidding me?

In our society, the life that was taken ALWAYS takes a backseat to the perp that took the life and I dont get it.
Again this is just emotive noise without any substance. You're arguing that in your opinion people should get harsher punishment. Unfortunately in your opinion means nothing. If you want people to take you seriously back up your opinion as to how and why it will result in a better society. If you're going one further and beating the death penalty drum, again the onus is on you to demonstrate how and why the death penalty is superior to long gaol terms. There have been many posts in this thread showing hard stats why the death penalty is dangerous, inefficient, and costly (both socially and financially). From you there has been censored profanity and appeals to emotion.

Well when you say "True or not" and use the rolleyes after that insinuating Im lying, you arent going to get a polite reply from me, sorry. Again go back and look at my post - you really do seem to have some reading and comprehension issues. When you post an unverifiable anecdote about *anything* on the internet to one up your argument, expect to shown up. That's what the rolleyes was at. True or not followed in the next sentence because as succinctly skunk put it;
Your suffering is irrelevant to the argument.

[VoodooDaddy]

There is something Ive definitely noticed about this politics board. If anyone is of a differing opinion of the majority they are immediately denounced as wrong, uninformed, ignorant, etc.

Toss out what happened to my sister. Pretend I never even mentioned that. I still believe the DP should be used more, way more than it is. Victims lives in our court system are of less value than the life of the person that committed the crime and thats what gets under my skin.

BTW, how is it that I was for the DP before what happened to my sister, but you claim my stand on it is soley based on emotion from that happening?

I can use any example, not just her. I dont think ANY life is worth only 15yrs in prison. Our court systems are way, way, way too easy on violent criminals.

[VoodooDaddy]

Again go back and look at my post - you really do seem to have some reading and comprehension issues. When you post an unverifiable anecdote about *anything* on the internet to one up your argument, expect to shown up. That's what the rolleyes was at.


So show me again where I didnt comprehend you giving an eyeroll and questioning whether or not what I was saying was true.

I said:

I was pro DP before my sister was mudered, and Im still for it. I can understand why ppl are against it, but I certainly cant comprehend ppl that are still against it after someone kills one of your family members. But thats up to you I guess. I just can not justify a piece of **** pleading down murder to manslaughter, getting 40yrs, immediately reduced to 20, and probably only serving 12 in the end. Complete and total ********.




You said:

Hooray for internet anecdotes :rolleyes:. True or not you've got to do better than appeal to emotions to bolster your argument.

[hulugu]

There is something Ive definitely noticed about this politics board. If anyone is of a differing opinion of the majority they are immediately denounced as wrong, uninformed, ignorant, etc.

Yes. That's how it works, we all have our opinions and a number of us disagree with you, and we each get to state our opinion, therefore the majority thinks you're wrong. I don't think you've been called ignorant, rather .Andy disagrees with your arguement's reliance on emotion rather than reason.


Toss out what happened to my sister. Pretend I never even mentioned that. I still believe the DP should be used more, way more than it is. Victims lives in our court system are of less value than the life of the person that committed the crime and thats what gets under my skin.

BTW, how is it that I was for the DP before what happened to my sister, but you claim my stand on it is soley based on emotion from that happening?

I can use any example, not just her. I dont think ANY life is worth only 15yrs in prison. Our court systems are way, way, way too easy on violent criminals.

You're creating a false dichotomy, it's not a choice between 15 years and execution. Furthermore, what's the point of prison and execution? Are we trying to exact vengence? Are we trying to protect the community? Or are we trying to rehabilitate criminals?
Are we acting civily and dispassionately? Or, should we act emotionally, maybe go back to draw-and-quarterings? There's a good horrible death that should make an example they won't soon forget.

[hulugu]

One question. What exactly are you advocating? A death penalty or death squads?

Both. A mixture of both.

Oh, death squads you say. Well that's a fantastic idea, let's create roving bands of fascists who grab people in the night and hussle them off to mass graves. That will keep everyone safe, after all this Constitutional Republic stuff is just getting in the way of justice. Ask any Argentine or Cambodian.

[66217]

Oh, death squads you say. Well that's a fantastic idea, let's create roving bands of fascists who grab people in the night and hussle them off to mass graves. That will keep everyone safe, after all this Constitutional Republic stuff is just getting in the way of justice. Ask any Argentine or Cambodian.

If you happen to have a best viable solution for the problem in Mexico, then go ahead and tell me, I'm all ears.

[xsedrinam]

If you happen to have a best viable solution for the problem in Mexico, then go ahead and tell me, I'm all ears.
At first glance, I thought you were surely joking about death squads. You are joking, right?
Videla's rampage of just five years in Argentina left some 30,000 missing and presumed dead the result of military backed "juntas" of death squads. They threw people off helicopters in to lakes in the name of cleaning up the country. "Violence" declined but the country was left in utter chaos.

Surely you're not suggesting that, again, as any viable solution to issues in Latin America!

[SMM]

If you happen to have a best viable solution for the problem in Mexico, then go ahead and tell me, I'm all ears.

The best solution is patience. You are not going to transform Mexico in a generation, or (perhaps) 10 generations.

The main reason laws work, is because the majority believe it is in their best interest to obey them. That has not been Mexico's history. But, that is not too shocking. Spain has had a similar history, right?

America was founded upon English law. Canada was too, as well as French law. That is where the difference lies.

Mexico is going to experience a new age of prosperity. With it will also rise a large, educated middle class. This is what brings about major social, political, economical change. You are living through the period of major transformation. It will be difficult. But in the end, a new prosperous, reformed Mexico will arise.

[66217]

At first glance, I thought you were surely joking about death squads. You are joking, right?
Videla's rampage of just five years in Argentina left some 30,000 missing and presumed dead the result of military backed "juntas" of death squads. They threw people off helicopters in to lakes in the name of cleaning up the country. "Violence" declined but the country was left in utter chaos.

Surely you're not suggesting that, again, as any viable solution to issues in Latin America!

I think I didn't made myself clear. What I am trying to say is that drug dealers in Mexico must be killed. It sound cruel, but at the time it is impossible to do anything else. Legalizing drugs would be ideal, but thats not going to happen.

Of course I am not talking of killing 30,000 people, or of making squads that go killing just for the minimal suspicions that someone may be a drug dealer.
When I talk about drug dealers, I talk about the guys that have the power, not the one that sell drugs in the streets. I said you cannot put them in jail more than a few weeks, because then they buy their way out and be back to the streets again. you have to make actions quick.

Earlier this year they send some drug dealers to the US, but a week ago I saw at the newspapers that the US was having a hard time getting evidence against them and that they were costing a lot of money. So I don't think they'll accept more.

[66217]

The best solution is patience. You are not going to transform Mexico in a generation, or (perhaps) 10 generations.

The main reason laws work, is because the majority believe it is in their best interest to obey them. That has not been Mexico's history. But, that is not too shocking. Spain has had a similar history, right?

America was founded upon English law. Canada was too, as well as French law. That is where the difference lies.

Mexico is going to experience a new age of prosperity. With it will also rise a large, educated middle class. This is what brings about major social, political, economical change. You are living through the period of major transformation. It will be difficult. But in the end, a new prosperous, reformed Mexico will arise.

I must disagree with you. The situation right now at Mexico is worst than just a small problem. If you let it continue like this Mexico would loose a great part of what it have been gaining lately.
The mafia won't disappear by it's own. There is a lot of money in the drugs market, consequently, they wont want to loose their money income.

The same thing happened in Italy, the mafia stopped killing so much people when the government started fighting back.
Just read a little about Mexico's situation and you would see that we have a HUGE problem growing here.

[skunk]

The same thing happened in Italy, the mafia stopped killing so much people when the government started fighting back.
Just read a little about Mexico's situation and you would see that we have a HUGE problem growing here.Italy is managing to do it legally. You're not going to solve Mexico's problem by calling in John Negroponte.

[hulugu]

I must disagree with you. The situation right now at Mexico is worst than just a small problem. If you let it continue like this Mexico would loose a great part of what it have been gaining lately.
The mafia won't disappear by it's own. There is a lot of money in the drugs market, consequently, they wont want to loose their money income.

The same thing happened in Italy, the mafia stopped killing so much people when the government started fighting back.
Just read a little about Mexico's situation and you would see that we have a HUGE problem growing here.

But, your solution is to create an entity that could grab people from their homes and then execute them in the night. If you were a drug dealer, how would you deal with this? You'd make your own death squads, or you'd just use more money and influence to send the death squads to someone else's door.

The Italians and the United States used police forces and the courts to blunt organized crime and though Mexico is different I can't imagine that death squads would do anything but send the country further into chaos and bloodshed.

[66217]

Italy is managing to do it legally. You're not going to solve Mexico's problem by calling in John Negroponte.

I already said that putting them in jail is impossible, legalizing drugs seems far from happening. So what else would you suggest?

And it is not about being legal or not, it is about doing the correct thing to do to solve the problem.

[66217]

But, your solution is to create an entity that could grab people from their homes and then execute them in the night. If you were a drug dealer, how would you deal with this? You'd make your own death squads, or you'd just use more money and influence to send the death squads to someone else's door.

The Italians and the United States used police forces and the courts to blunt organized crime and though Mexico is different I can't imagine that death squads would do anything but send the country further into chaos and bloodshed.

Put them in jail for one week if you want. I am not saying to kill them the instant you see them, but you cannot keep them many time in a jail. You have to act quickly before they get out.

The drug dealers already have their death squads, they are killing people every single day. And they aren't just killing between each other. They have killed 2 of the police chiefs of my city. They threw explosives to a government building and killed one guy and other 4 are injured. They have killed in the most gruesome and inhumane way you can imagine. There are a total of 23 policemen already killed in my city.

Man, believe me, you cannot treat these guys with respect. People are now afraid to go out and get caught in a fight between drug dealers. And we are talking of the second largest city of Mexico, you cannot let a 3 million city paralyze just because of these guys.

[hulugu]

Put them in jail for one week if you want. I am not saying to kill them the instant you see them, but you cannot keep them many time in a jail. You have to act quickly before they get out.

The drug dealers already have their death squads, they are killing people every single day. And they aren't just killing between each other. They have killed 2 of the police chiefs of my city. They threw explosives to a government building and killed one guy and other 4 are injured. They have killed in the most gruesome and inhumane way you can imagine. There are a total of 23 policemen already killed in my city.

Man, believe me, you cannot treat these guys with respect. People are now afraid to go out and get caught in a fight between drug dealers. And we are talking of the second largest city of Mexico, you cannot let a 3 million city paralyze just because of these guys.

I understand the situation, and it seems to me the problem remains the rampant corruption in government and in the police force so that creating a death squad with the purview of 'shoot the bad guys' could easily by used to fight proxy turf wars.
You need a working courts system, not more guys who work in the black with guns at the ready. The Sicilians are having some success by using informants, good police work, and the breakdown of the code of silence that often protects the mafia.
I can't think of a single place where death squads did anything but destroy the fabric of the society they operated in. Can you?

[solvs]

Agreed, innocent people of course are going to die at some point. But I prefer the state hunting down the criminals and maybe kill an innocent in the process, than having the state doing nothing and the bad guys killing innocent people.
So, you advocate killing innocent people to... save innocent people? :confused: That's not how a civilized society works. We protect the rights of all. If everyone doesn't have rights, no one has them. Not saying we put them all out on the street, but we protect their rights and give them a fair trial. If there is evidence they are guilty, they are punished. Most murderers will get life, or practically life, in prison. They are no longer a threat to society. Killing them just makes us no better, unless in extreme circumstances. Even then sometimes.

Obviously you and your ilk have never had a loved one murdered :rolleyes:
You don't know that. Even if we did, doesn't change anything. There's a reason why family and friends don't get to dole out the punishment. Society does, because otherwise it isn't law, it's vigilantism. Sorry for you loss, I empathize (I do) and am not trying to belittle your anger, but for the good of society, the impartial must judge, not those close to the victims. You can campaign and testify against them in court, but anything further is personal vengeance, way too open for abuse and mistakes and, sorry, just not the way things work.

BTW, if the DP was enforced more stringently, if these scumbags didnt get to sit on death row for 25yrs while they play out 100 appeals, I believe it would be a deterrent.
But it isn't. That's been proven wrong. Life in prison isn't a deterrent either, but it accomplishes the same goal of removing the dangerous from society without all that barbaric killing stuff. That's the part that bugs me the most. That society and the gov can decide to legally kill someone. Ironically, for the crime of murder. That does send a message. A mixed one.

Being the biggest punishment 40 years in jail (and easily reduced to 25-30 years) is not lax???:confused:
Life in prison is the norm for murderers. Even 25-30 years is a long time. By the time they get out, if they even do, they have already given up most of their life. If they kill again in cold blood, a majority of the time they will not be getting back out any time soon, if ever, no matter how well they behave.

But the drug-dealers are a problem that cannot be solved without eliminating them, these are persons that have lost any respect for the human life.
What do drug dealers have to do with pedophiles? We're talking about pedos here. More aptly child molesters.

And believe it or not, repeated molesters do actually spend a large portion of their lives in jail, and are lucky if they can ever live a normal life. Chemical castration, along with lots of counseling, do a fair amount of good, and if they don't, the molesters go right back in. While sickening, making it a death penalty offense for a crime that did not result in death is a slippery slope none of us wants. Drug dealers, even if they are responsible for deaths, are a whole nother ball of wax entirely.

And they cannot be put in jail.
Then how do you execute them if you can't even keep them in jail?

Their DP must not be the ones that takes 1 years to make, they must be more quickly, 1 month maximum.
Way too open for abuse. That kind of speed would lead to a lot of mistakes and a lot more problems than it would solve. You're advocating something they do in the ME, or 3rd world countries, and look at how well that's working out for them.

There is something Ive definitely noticed about this politics board. If anyone is of a differing opinion of the majority they are immediately denounced as wrong, uninformed, ignorant, etc.
Only if you're wrong, uninformed, or ignorant. Back up what you say with facts if you're going to say such things. Burden of proof. Preferably with links from reputable sources. Unless it's already been posted, as most of the info I posted has, or something that's a given, like the sky being blue. We have plenty of discussion where we disagree with each other, mostly over opinion. But you can make up your own opinions, you can't make up your own facts. It's all right there in the FAQ, if you read it. If you have a problem with anything I've posted, feel free to challenge me, and I will kindly provide links or retract if I can't. That's how it works.

It's funny, because I've noticed people coming in here posting something based on nothing but personal opinion, and when shown with logic and proof they are wrong, claiming we aren't open to opposing points of view. The talking heads do this in the MSM too. It's funny how feelings and opinion that are the complete and total opposite of the truth are somehow seen as being just as valid as facts and logic based on reality.

Hint: they aren't the same. ;)

[Queso]

But, your solution is to create an entity that could grab people from their homes and then execute them in the night. If you were a drug dealer, how would you deal with this? You'd make your own death squads, or you'd just use more money and influence to send the death squads to someone else's door.

The Italians and the United States used police forces and the courts to blunt organized crime and though Mexico is different I can't imagine that death squads would do anything but send the country further into chaos and bloodshed.
This is spot on. If the drug lords can buy the police and the politicians, they can also buy the death squads. And then they have another weapon to use against their enemies and those they wish influence over.

The death squad solution will most likely lead to Mexico dividing into territories run by militias, basically another Somalia. Is that what you want, Roco?

[.Andy]

So show me again where I didnt comprehend you giving an eyeroll and questioning whether or not what I was saying was true.

Hooray for internet anecdotes :rolleyes:. True or not you've got to do better than appeal to emotions to bolster your argument.

Well when you say "True or not" and use the rolleyes after that insinuating Im lying This is your comprehension issue. Firstly I never put a :rolleyes: after true or not. Secondly, and read this slowly - my point is that it is *irrelevant* whether your anecdote is true or not, it does not support your vacuous argument for the state to kill people. I never once questioned the truth of your claim, and frankly I still don't care as it's none of my business.

There is something Ive definitely noticed about this politics board. If anyone is of a differing opinion of the majority they are immediately denounced as wrong, uninformed, ignorant, etc.
So far your arguments have been based on anecdote, appeals to emotion, profanity, name-calling, and now you've thrown a tantrum. If you're trying to make a name for yourself in PRS as an intelligent poster you're failing miserably.

And I'll quote everything solvs said because it's exactly what I would have written if (a) I had the patience to reply to you again and (b) I was more eloquent.

Only if you're wrong, uninformed, or ignorant. Back up what you say with facts if you're going to say such things. Burden of proof. Preferably with links from reputable sources. Unless it's already been posted, as most of the info I posted has, or something that's a given, like the sky being blue. We have plenty of discussion where we disagree with each other, mostly over opinion. But you can make up your own opinions, you can't make up your own facts. It's all right there in the FAQ, if you read it. If you have a problem with anything I've posted, feel free to challenge me, and I will kindly provide links or retract if I can't. That's how it works.

It's funny, because I've noticed people coming in here posting something based on nothing but personal opinion, and when shown with logic and proof they are wrong, claiming we aren't open to opposing points of view. The talking heads do this in the MSM too. It's funny how feelings and opinion that are the complete and total opposite of the truth are somehow seen as being just as valid as facts and logic based on reality.

Hint: they aren't the same.

[66217]

This is spot on. If the drug lords can buy the police and the politicians, they can also buy the death squads. And then they have another weapon to use against their enemies and those they wish influence over.

The death squad solution will most likely lead to Mexico dividing into territories run by militias, basically another Somalia. Is that what you want, Roco?

I really doubt that would happen to Mexico.

They haven't been able to buy guys from the army, and nor can they threat the president, since killing the president would only make them have worse problems (they haven't killed guys in the high levels of the government).

For example, a couple of moths ago the army arrived to a house who they thought was from drug dealers. When the drug dealers saw them, they open fire and the army fights back and kills 2 or 3. Like 4 drug dealers are injured, but they don't die. They put them in jail and 1 week later they are out and free because they didn't found anything to incriminate them.

So what am I proposing is to kill them right there, say it was a fight between the army and the drug dealers. There is very little chance they'll kill an innocent, they know exactly who are the bad guys.

[Queso]

So what am I proposing is to kill them right there, say it was a fight between the army and the drug dealers. There is very little chance they'll kill an innocent, they know exactly who are the bad guys.
I see you've thought this through :rolleyes:

You still don't seem to get the point I'm trying to make against your proposal. If, in your society, you allow the principle of rule by gun to replace the judicial system, your society will quickly degenerate into a bloodbath. The drug lords are not going to sit there waiting to be murdered by the Government. Either they will fight back directly, or they will use their influence to buy immunity from the system. The consequences of the former is that private armies are going to spring up across the country and they'll be even more death than there is now, and the latter is that the drug lords will have even more influence over the running of the country, to the point where they can use the powers you have just given the government against you.

This isn't a way forward in any form. Please drop the idea and think of something else.

[66217]

So, you advocate killing innocent people to... save innocent people? :confused:

You twisted my words.
I said innocent people may die, but this doesn't happen very often.

Wars are the same, innocent people may die, but that doesn't make the war inhumane and totally wrong.

What do drug dealers have to do with pedophiles? We're talking about pedos here. More aptly child molesters.

For the last two pages we have been discussing this. At least me and some other 2-3 persons. Threads in this section of MacRumors never end as they begin.:p

It's funny, because I've noticed people coming in here posting something based on nothing but personal opinion, and when shown with logic and proof they are wrong, claiming we aren't open to opposing points of view. The talking heads do this in the MSM too. It's funny how feelings and opinion that are the complete and total opposite of the truth are somehow seen as being just as valid as facts and logic based on reality.


Some threads that talk about religion are often based on personal opinion and beliefs (and religion can't be proven with facts), so it is faith against science (consequently, nobody wins).

Some are like this thread, that has no facts to support either side (pro DP or anti DP).

And some, as you say, are only between opinion and facts. But there are little occasions where religion is not involved. So we end with the same problem like in the first case.:)

Out of curiosity, what is MSM?

[66217]

You still don't seem to get the point I'm trying to make against your proposal. If, in your society, you allow the principle of rule by gun to replace the judicial system, your society will quickly degenerate into a bloodbath. The drug lords are not going to sit there waiting to be murdered by the Government. Either they will fight back directly, or they will use their influence to buy immunity from the system. The consequences of the former is that private armies are going to spring up across the country and they'll be even more death than there is now, and the latter is that the drug lords will have even more influence over the running of the country, to the point where they can use the powers you have just given the government against you.

I understand you perfectly, buy I still think that what you propose is not the best.
As for buying immunity from the system, if you put the army it would be a lot more difficult, I could dare say almost impossible. They won't buy the president, and it would be difficult they buy the army.

Colombia has shown that this strategy works very well at the beginning, drug dealers don't want to be in Colombia any more because the colombian president declared war on them. And it wasn't a nice war.


This isn't a way forward in any form. Please drop the idea and think of something else.


May I say the same thing to you?:rolleyes:

[Queso]

Colombia has shown that this strategy works very well at the beginning, drug dealers don't want to be in Colombia any more because the colombian president declared war on them. And it wasn't a nice war.
I'd hardly say Columbia is a utopia to which Mexico should aspire. Large swathes of the country are still outside of government control, unemployment is more than three times the Mexican levels and their developed economy is tiny.

[66217]

I'd hardly say Columbia is a utopia to which Mexico should aspire. Large swathes of the country are still outside of government control, unemployment is more than three times the Mexican levels and their developed economy is tiny.

Agreed, I don't want Mexico to be like Colombia. That's the reason I want to stop the drug dealers, if not, we will end just like them.

But let's put this part of the thread to rest, we aren't achieving anything and I don't like arguing just for the sake of arguing (nothing can be gained and much can be lost).:) Nonetheless, it is always good to hear the opinions of someone else.