Thread: The GOP in Meltdown

Originally Posted by venturalaw

The difference is clear. The death penalty serves a purpose - it is definitely a deterrent although the pro-abortionists would say otherwise. However, can you deny the fact that by killing an adult for committing a crime worthy of the death penalty he/she would be prevented from re-offending? The death penalty is the only undeniable deterrent.

You're confusing 'deterrent' and recidivism; two entirely seperate and distinct issues.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Of course killing them would prevent them from committing another crime, hence the deterrent.

I go on to say that it's a question of justice. If there is no deterrent to killing (observe the hundreds of people on death row) why continue. It's a moral question. The idea that we can't lock people up in a maximum security prison so they can't escape is absurd. As for them killing somebody I love, that's an emotional argument and has nothing to do with the issue.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Since you feel entitled to dictate the issues to be discussed, I will go no further.

Chicken.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by venturalaw

The death penalty is the only undeniable deterrent.

If you really want to get into it, start another thread.

Make up your mind.

"If there is no deterrent to killing (observe the hundreds of people on death row) why continue."

I already answered this - I'll answer it again. The death penalty is not absolute - in reality it's fairly slim (hence the numbers on death row as oppose to the numbers executed). If the death penalty was absolute - there would be fewer offenders and no one on death row. Understand?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by venturalaw

The difference is clear. The death penalty serves a purpose - it is definitely a deterrent although the pro-abortionists would say otherwise. However, can you deny the fact that by killing an adult for committing a crime worthy of the death penalty he/she would be prevented from re-offending? The death penalty is the only undeniable deterrent.

You're confusing 'deterrent' and recidivism; two entirely seperate and distinct issues.

Legal definition of deterrence - the inhibition of criminal behavior by fear esp. of punishment
Recidivism - repeated or habitual relapse, as into crime.
I was using the word deterrent in describing the prevention of recitivism resulting from the execution of the offender. It appears that deterrent speaks to the issue of OTHERS being deterred (prevented) as the result of a threatened punishment. Executing the offender definitely PREVENTS relapse or recitivism, but it is not by definition 'recitivism'.

Originally Posted by raycarey

somebody tell me he's joking.

oh man.... i guess you weren't joking.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

It appears that deterrent speaks to the issue of OTHERS being deterred (prevented) as the result of a threatened punishment.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

It appears that deterrent speaks to the issue of OTHERS being deterred (prevented) as the result of a threatened punishment.

Of course; and the issue of whether the Death Penality is an effective deterrent (or any kind of deterrent at all) is moot at best.

Is the death penalty a deterrent? Seems not.

^ Finally killing some off, then?

Originally Posted by venturalaw

the death penalty is not definite and certain, and the likelyhood of it being carried out is very slim.

Originally Posted by MrG

some states are considering abolishing the death penalty because it is too expensive.

Same point really, stated from a different perspective. And the same reason that, on balance, I have come out against the death penalty. Plus the fact that too many innocent people have swung, and this is a moral culpability.

If you're gonna do it, copy the Chinks. If guilt and culpability are absolutely established, out the back with a bullet. No need to charge the family for the slug though.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Of course killing them would prevent them from committing another crime, hence the deterrent.

I go on to say that it's a question of justice. If there is no deterrent to killing (observe the hundreds of people on death row) why continue. It's a moral question. The idea that we can't lock people up in a maximum security prison so they can't escape is absurd. As for them killing somebody I love, that's an emotional argument and has nothing to do with the issue.

Having them distanced from you out of circulation doesn't mean they can no longer pursue their sociopath ways. What's to keep them from preying on people while in prison? Society has an obligation to convicted criminals as well as free individuals. Incarcerated criminals do not cease being citizens entitled to protection.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by attaboy

Incarcerated criminals do not cease being citizens entitled to protection.

Agreed. So what's the point?

The point is you made this statement

Originally Posted by MrG

The idea that we can't lock people up in a maximum security prison so they can't escape is absurd.

and I wanted some clarification. Because a murderous sociopath is in prison it doesn't mean they are no longer a threat. People often make the mistake of thinking once a person is in prison, society is safe. It's not so. Sociopaths spread their violence, misery, influence and corruption inside prison and it extends outside prison.

If I could be certain that an innocent man would not b put to death for a murder he did not commit than I would be all for putting MSs to death and thus putting them out of the business of generating misery. Common murderers could get life but sociopaths get the death penalty. The problem is there are no guarantees in an adversarial legal system that an innocent man would never get convicted and executed, so I'm against the death penalty.

How do you propose to isolate murderous sociopaths from the rest of the prison population? Maybe they should be executed to put an end to their toxicity, eh?

Originally Posted by attaboy

If I could be certain that an innocent man would not b put to death for a murder he did not commit than I would be all for putting MSs to death and thus putting them out of the business of generating misery.

I take this to mean that you do not believe in capital punishment unless there is absolute certainty that we are not putting an innocent person to death, which I applaud--it's farther than a lot of my countrymen will go. But what about in the case of DNA evidence for conviction which does make it a certainty. Is capital punishment then justified in your eyes?

Originally Posted by attaboy

People often make the mistake of thinking once a person is in prison, society is safe. It's not so. Sociopaths spread their violence, misery, influence and corruption inside prison and it extends outside prison.

I don't understand this. How does their violence extend outside the prison?

Finally, sociopaths are by definition mentally ill. Killing the mentally sick and handicapped is not going to prevent any more crime. It's just revenge masquarading as a perveted sense of justice, IMO. Texas killed a retarded man a year or two ago. Is that going to stop other retarded people from killing? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

life inside a hell hole with a bunch of other murderers is a strong enough deterrent for most people that feel the urge to strangle their boss or bludgeon their unfaithful wife.

That's the idea, and probably works for many (does for me). But studies I've read say that most murders are crimes of passion. Little thought involved, so the deterrence effect seems to fade in those circumstances. As for pre-meditated murders where there's time to think about the consequences...people who commit crimes simply don't think they are going to get caught.

I'm going on memory here, but if you want another perspective try
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?list=type&type=13
http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/96-01%20JAN/factsondeathpen.html

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by attaboy

If I could be certain that an innocent man would not b put to death for a murder he did not commit than I would be all for putting MSs to death and thus putting them out of the business of generating misery.

I take this to mean that you do not believe in capital punishment unless there is absolute certainty that we are not putting an innocent person to death, which I applaud--it's farther than a lot of my countrymen will go. But what about in the case of DNA evidence for conviction which does make it a certainty. Is capital punishment then justified in your eyes?

Originally Posted by attaboy

People often make the mistake of thinking once a person is in prison, society is safe. It's not so. Sociopaths spread their violence, misery, influence and corruption inside prison and it extends outside prison.

I don't understand this. How does their violence extend outside the prison?

Finally, sociopaths are by definition mentally ill. Killing the mentally sick and handicapped is not going to prevent any more crime. It's just revenge masquarading as a perveted sense of justice, IMO. Texas killed a retarded man a year or two ago. Is that going to stop other retarded people from killing? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

life inside a hell hole with a bunch of other murderers is a strong enough deterrent for most people that feel the urge to strangle their boss or bludgeon their unfaithful wife.

That's the idea, and probably works for many (does for me). But studies I've read say that most murders are crimes of passion. Little thought involved, so the deterrence effect seems to fade in those circumstances. As for pre-meditated murders where there's time to think about the consequences...people who commit crimes simply don't think they are going to get caught.

I'm going on memory here, but if you want another perspective try
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?list=type&type=13
http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/96-01%20JAN/factsondeathpen.html

I take this to mean that you do not believe in capital punishment unless there is absolute certainty that we are not putting an innocent person to death, I think anyone would agree with this point. The state must be absolutely certain that an innocent person is not being executed.
Finally, sociopaths are by definition mentally ill. Killing the mentally sick and handicapped is not going to prevent any more crime. It's just revenge masquarading as a perveted sense of justice, IMO.
For me, no execution is for revenge. It is for the purpose of assuring that the perpetrater can never re-offend. That to me is paramount for if, and it has occured, a murderer is released, and murders again, there can be no excuse, for the government, the judicial system, has let down society by failing to provide protection.
Texas killed a retarded man a year or two ago. Is that going to stop other retarded people from killing?
Good point. No, but if some day a government official had determined that the release of the retarded man back into society was appropriate, and he re-offended, then a significant tradgedy would have occured that could have been prevented by an execution.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Texas killed a retarded man a year or two ago. Is that going to stop other retarded people from killing? Good point. No, but if some day a government official had determined that the release of the retarded man back into society was appropriate, and he re-offended, then a significant tradgedy would have occured that could have been prevented by an execution.

Life in prison without benefit of parole.

^
better yet.... a secure, mental health care facility.

Originally Posted by attaboy

How do you propose to isolate murderous sociopaths from the rest of the prison population?

Ask Woody Harrelson what his father thought about dying in a Federal Supermax, they seem pretty effective in the isolation thing, 23 hours a day in solitary and 1 hour of exercise alone, rather unpleasant and a lot cheaper than executing an innocent man

^ Supermax is pretty rare. For inmates that are dangerous to others and high risk in some way to the system, I believe.

Yes, it's a bad way to live - and die.

Originally Posted by MrG

Life in prison without benefit of parole.

555 At the taxpayers' expense. Just shoot them.

^ I just read RNC Chairman Steele's comments, for what they are worth.

It seems the GOP has divisions, and the mid-term elections are not so sure.

And honestly, what's the difference of who's in the House and Senate?

Same, same.

^ Nothing wrong with that. Get the party back to its core principles. I see three libbies, likely including doddering Dodd, are retiring while they're ahead so they don't get ousted in the next elections.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...seek-election/

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele, under fire this week for statements he has made while promoting his book, has so angered the party's congressional leaders that their aides said they told his handlers to "get him to stop."

Steele, who has been making television appearances, said Monday that he did not think Republicans could win back their congressional majorities in 2010. "Not this year," he told Fox News Channel, saying he was just beginning to look at races, even though the party has been recruiting candidates for months.


...The Washington Times reported Thursday that some prominent party fundraisers are withholding donations from the RNC because of Steele.

Steele's spokeswoman did not return a call for comment Thursday. But in an interview Thursday, Steele told his Republican critics to "shut up."

"I tell them to get a life," he said on ABC News Radio. "I'm looking them in the eye and say, 'I've had enough of it. If you don't want me in the job, fire me. But until then, shut up. Get with the program or get out of the way.' "

washingtonpost.com


Feel the lurv in GOP land.