how much more of this can we as a society take?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Nothing like a little self righteous blood lust to brighten up the day, huh?

Countries who don't execute anybody have lower murder rates, and states w/o the death penalty have lower murder rates than states who do.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

Not that you'll allow facts to interfere with the formulation of your opinions. Why change now, right?

It would have nothing to do with the idea that countries that don't have a violent murder problem don't need harsh laws to protect the innocent.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It would have nothing to do with the idea that countries that don't have a violent murder problem don't need harsh laws to protect the innocent.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Vengeance after the fact protects nobody, and the death penalty obviously serves as no deterrent at all.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
What do you expect?

When honest citizens get prosecuted for murder when the only thing they did was defend themselves you are pussified society. Its what government wants.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
What do you expect?

When honest citizens get prosecuted for murder when the only thing they did was defend themselves you are pussified society. Its what government wants.

Tell us, oh great trolling one, what % of US homicide prosecutions fall into that alleged category?
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Thought for sure i'd come into to see this.

U.S. Accuses JPMorgan of Manipulating Energy Markets

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/energy-regulator-details-case-against-jpmorgan/?_r=0



Yes, they manipulated the energy markets. Criminals should do jail time, not negotiate paltry fines against the backdrop of massive profiteering.
But just think of her dim future, forever stained by this unfortunate misunderstanding: Now she might be limited to jobs that pay only 7-digit salaries. :'(


Or how the banks are buying warehousing companies which store commodities, thus allowing them to gain an inside look at the flow of important materials, particularly ones in markets where they've got sizable investments themselves. But don't go thinking that this shady business is anything remotely like insider trading. Nope.
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Vengeance after the fact protects nobody, and the death penalty obviously serves as no deterrent at all.

It protects every single future victim that the murderer is going to have. The deterrence is in the fact he'd never commit a violent crime, any violent crime after he was executed
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Much of US Local News is a constant stream of "We're going to hell". Just stop watching it. There are more worthy and simply better things going on in your community that far outweighs the Crime, Auto Accidents, House Fires, and other titillations that many News orgs won't bother touching.
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
It protects every single future victim that the murderer is going to have. The deterrence is in the fact he'd never commit a violent crime, any violent crime after he was executed

That isn't deterrence. It's all about retribution.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,776
4
0
If someone has brutally murdered another person under circumstances where there is no doubt it was them, and there is no question as to the killing having been completely unnecessary and malicious, I believe removing them from society/the gene pool through execution makes perfect sense.

If someone's accused by the police of murdering their spouse, and the evidence is circumstantial... that's another matter entirely. When we have video or incredibly clear forensic evidence (victim's blood in their car, their semen at scene, murder weapon found in their possession, etc) I don't see any reason why we should keep them around to siphon taxpayer dollars.

We also risk the possibility that eventually subsequent generations may be stupid and release them. Destroying them prevents this.

In situations where guilt is not so clear, that person should have a life sentence and access to the internet, law books, whatever is needed for them to have a shot at proving they were wrongfully convicted. I would never support killing someone in an unclear situation even if the circumstantial evidence was strong. If there was not incontrovertible evidence like I mentioned above, particularly DNA... I would err on the side of caution and give a life sentence.

Maybe vengeance gets a bad rap. I used to be very anti-death penalty and that was a big part of why, I thought it was just blood lust/vengeance... but perhaps indulging in those instincts to a limited degree, with careful checks and balances, is important. Perhaps a society that turns it's back entirely on primal instincts like that just becomes a weak, frail society which invites conquest by other societies which still retain their spine.
 

frowertr

Golden Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,371
41
91
If I ran a retail establishment I would absolutely ban hoodies.


Almost every single violent crime involves a thug wearing a hoodie in deep cover.

I do this in my family business. We also have a sign posted on the front door that says pants must be pulled up over your underwear.

Not sure if it really prevents anything but it sure makes our clientele look much better.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It protects every single future victim that the murderer is going to have. The deterrence is in the fact he'd never commit a violent crime, any violent crime after he was executed

So, uhh, how many people are killed by prisoners serving life w/o parole, anyway?
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
I don't think society can take much more of this. When will it stop?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
So, uhh, how many people are killed by prisoners serving life w/o parole, anyway?

How many guards are killed or injured and how many other inmates are murdered, raped, knifed or assaulted while a murderer is serving their time? or are you so stupid that you think their life of crime ends at the prison gates?
 

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,612
318
126
If someone has brutally murdered another person under circumstances where there is no doubt it was them, and there is no question as to the killing having been completely unnecessary and malicious, I believe removing them from society/the gene pool through execution makes perfect sense.

How does life in prison without parole allow people back into society?

If someone's accused by the police of murdering their spouse, and the evidence is circumstantial... that's another matter entirely. When we have video or incredibly clear forensic evidence (victim's blood in their car, their semen at scene, murder weapon found in their possession, etc) I don't see any reason why we should keep them around to siphon taxpayer dollars.

The problem with that argument is that life in prison costs less than the death penalty:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=7075017

We also risk the possibility that eventually subsequent generations may be stupid and release them. Destroying them prevents this.

Personally I think the risk that a future "stupid" society will let them free is less than the risk that our society will put to death innocents that future technology can set free. Like the 100+ people that DNA evidence proved were innocent after they were already put to death.
 
Last edited:

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,612
318
126
How many guards are killed or injured and how many other inmates are murdered, raped, knifed or assaulted while a murderer is serving their time? or are you so stupid that you think their life of crime ends at the prison gates?

On average, in my state (the state MOST enthusiastic about the death penalty) the average time a prisoner spends on death row is more than a decade:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/dr_facts.html

If they are going to harm people inside the prison, they still have plenty of time to do so.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
On average, in my state (the state MOST enthusiastic about the death penalty) the average time a prisoner spends on death row is more than a decade:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/dr_facts.html

If they are going to harm people inside the prison, they still have plenty of time to do so.

So the answer should be to reduce the time limit on appeals and expedite the death penalty being carried out.
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
So the answer should be to reduce the time limit on appeals and expedite the death penalty being carried out.

Why not just have the jury execute the defendant instead of the boring "we find soandso..." statement. Think of what television could do with that also. Not a bad idea.
 

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,612
318
126
So the answer should be to reduce the time limit on appeals and expedite the death penalty being carried out.

That is impossible.

The appeal process for the death penalty was defined by the Supreme Court. To "reduce the time limit on appeals" would take an amendment to the constitution that is politically not viable.