Favourite? Don't have one. I'm against capital punishment. I just don't see any point in ignoring the deterrence literature. Have a look back or don't. I won't be copying and pasting my posts in the same thread. That would be a little crass!
Then choose from amongst the ones of which you're ambivilent, but which you think will slap me down. Go hog wild.
I've already told you: scroll back if you're interested. To be frank, I'm surprised how few know the evidence on this issue. Its been discussed for yonks
Sure, but that was after you said you could reference studies. I know what I can do, and am merely saying what I wish to not do (read the whole friggin' thread.) So either do what you said you could, or don't. What's it to me?
Already done. Scroll back. I refuse to copy and paste on the same thread. This is my last post on the subject. Crikey, given the time you've wasted, you could have found them by now
Here, I'll type slowly and use smaller words: No. Not what I want to do. Meanwhile, if you're too lazy or unable, why say you can do it? Why not just say you do not want to, as I did. See how easy that is?
There is a balance scale you seem to have forgotten. That between the one innocent person you (and all of us) don't want to go to prison, and the innocent people who will be the next victims of the 10 guilty men who go free. even if you lock up those 10 guilty men (let's say convicted murderers) we may well have next victims of them inside the prison if they don't get the death penalty. As long as you don't execute them, you're gambling with the lives of whatever people they come in contact with, inside or outside the prison.
Of course you could use that to argue that anyone suspected of murder should be immediately disposed of.
That's ridiculous. Of course you can't use that to argue that anyone suspected of murder should be immediately disposed of. If they are only suspected, they are innocent until proven guilty. How you got from what I said, to what you said, is baffling.
I can't believe anyone actually objects to the death penalty. I find this to be nothing more than a sick and sad testament to the growing weakness and cowardice of western culture. Too many people today rationalize away legitimate justice out of some misplaced sense of moral self-righteousness. What's truly barbaric is expressing more sympathy for a cold-blooded murderer than the family of an innocent victim. Disgusting. I will never support such garbage.
Just an application of logic. If there is a genuine attempt to compare the innocents killed, be it the capital punishment victim or the possible murder victims from the released, then that opens up the notion of an 'optimal innocent death rate' (I.e. There is a hypothetical trade-off between accidently murdering the innocent and protecting people from murder), which provides a hypothetical justification for executing suspects
I'm really not convinced either way. Anti Capital Punishment activists paint murders as some sort of Victim. They aren't they are murderers, if they die as a result of their crimes I'm not going to shed a tear but FFS get rid of this 20 years on death Row nonsense. In the UK when we had the death penalty 3 sundays had to pass before sentence could be carried out which was enough time to petition the home secretary for appeal or clemency after which sentence was carried out. No ritual, no 'last walk', no last minute dramas a hanging can be carried out in under 10 seconds from the hangman entering the condemned cell to the drop. Soviet system was even better. If the judges had decided you were guilty and would be given the death penalty you weren't told. You were walked back supposedly to the courtroom to hear you sentence, a guard would 'confide' that he had heard you were going to be found innocent or given a reduced sentence then you tuned and found yourself in a white tiled room and offered the chance to use the toilet first. A Man would step behind you fire twice into the back of the neck and into the skull. You were dead, stopped, finished. No drama.
I'll say it again. "As long as you don't execute them, you're gambling with the lives of whatever people they come in contact with, inside or outside the prison." Problem with your post is, you changed the subject. You started talking about "the innocents killed". That's YOUR subject, not mine. The prisoners not being executed that I'm talking about have NO DOUBT as to their guilt. They are convicted from videos showing them committing the act or have been convicted on some very sure evidence such as having committed the murder in a public area in front of dozens of people (all strangers to one another) + DNA evidence to boot. If there's the slightest doubt as to one's guilt, I wouldn't advocate the death penalty. So for me, NO, there is no optimal or acceptable innocent death rate. For me, the innocent death rate is zero. I'm just wanting people to not forget about the danger that allowing allowing convicted murderers to live presents (including other prisoners in the prison).
There is another issue and that is the woefully inadequate legal system of many parts of the USA where people without any access to funds have the most appalling legal representation. Where there is injustice it is because the accused has NOT had a fair trial not because of the death penalty per se. People accused of capital crimes should have the best possible defence paid for by the state.
The only way to correct that would be Universal Legal Representation where all lawyers took turns working pro bono, but good luck with that
No, the problem with your post is that you do not understand the logical implications. We often have 'no doubt' about the guilt of the innocent executed. Sounds like you don't even know what you're saying. Doubt is typically time dependent; what we see as as black and white today, given further evidence, found to be rather grey. No, you've constructed an argument that actually leads to a more aggressive policy, otherwise "you've gambling with people's lives'
We have a system in the UK. If you are accused of a very serious crime you will get a QC to represent you (QCs are the elite of trial lawyers) that is paid for by state funds, If you are accused of a less serious crime but worthy of over 2 years prison you will get a Barrister (trial lawyer) and Solicitor (non trial lawyer) paid for you. France has a similar system but they have the added advantage of the Investigative judge system.
Never happen here, first of all most of our politicians are lawyers and the lawyers would never allow that to happen. They feed off the rich in america, they dont need the rest of us
The same lawyers that would fight for Obamacare and Universal healthcare would cringe at the thought of Universal Legal Defense. Can we say twofaced ?
The likes of Garland traces the US love affair with the death penalty to her lynch-mob past. That would be rather incompatible with your comment
The lynch-mob mentality has naff all to do with government. You need to put more thought in your comments
Of course it does. It has everything to do with Big Government. Government power is the power of the collective. What do you think a mob is? A mob is a collective. In lynching, the mob exerts its power of the collective over an individual but absent the rule of law. The death penalty as sanctioned by the legal system is merely the the power of the collective within the rule of law. Your presumption is debatable anyways. First, you assume this Garland is correct. How do you know? Death penalties are still common throughout the world. Even though it has been banned in most of the civilized world, most countries practiced the death penalty well into the 1960s. The death penalty is a manifestation of a deep human need for justice no matter where that may be. American conservatives like to think of themselves as for small government, but that certainly isn't the case in the death penalty. There is nothing more Big Government than taking the life of another human being. Conservatives rail against raising taxes on someone by 2% but see no problem with the enormous power of the government taking the life of another human being. If that's what conservatives want to believe in, fine, but don't give us any BS that it's not Big Government. Finally, conservatives like to rail about how incompetent government is. However, they assume that government is ruthlessly efficient and (almost) never wrong when putting people to death. So the government cannot deliver the mail because they're incompetent but don't dare suggest that government f**** up in life and death matters! The death penalty has put innocent people to death. (Or, wait, is the government never wrong?) That makes the government no better than the thug on the street who murders innocent people.
