This guy should be executed for murder

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 77
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
Indeed the cheapest thing by far would just be to let nature take its course. If it is not your problem when other people are starving to death why would it be your problem if people are murdering each other? I mean even if it happens close to your house. Just get a good security system or move to a better neighborhood. Stop trying to steal twenty dollars that isn't yours to kill someone who isn't doing anything that is your problem?
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
That is not the current reality. We spend millions of dollars on executions once court costs and appeals are taken into account
So get rid of the court cases and appeals.  Make executions cheaper.

 If it is not your problem when other people are starving to death why would it be your problem if people are murdering each other?
Because I might get murdered.

 I mean even if it happens close to your house. Just get a good security system or move to a better neighborhood. 
Not going to prevent murder.  Murderers don't care about social security systems.

Stop trying to steal twenty dollars that isn't yours to kill someone who isn't doing anything that is your problem?
They might come over here and kill me if they have a history with murder.  I don't want them killing me.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
That is not the current reality. We spend millions of dollars on executions once court costs and appeals are taken into account
So get rid of the court cases and appeals.  Make executions cheaper.
Not true. Lobbying Congress is expensive. Just ask the petrol industry and big tobacco. 
 If it is not your problem when other people are starving to death why would it be your problem if people are murdering each other?
Because I might get murdered.

 I mean even if it happens close to your house. Just get a good security system or move to a better neighborhood. 
Not going to prevent murder.  Murderers don't care about social security systems.
Again move to a better neighborhood. No one is forcing you to live by a murderer. It's a free country.
Stop trying to steal twenty dollars that isn't yours to kill someone who isn't doing anything that is your problem?
They might come over here and kill me if they have a history with murder.  I don't want them killing me.
Again you should just move somewhere safer if you don't like it. And build a fence if you are really worried about it. Don't steal someone else's twenty dollars just because you are to lazy to move and invest in proper security. 
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
So get rid of the court cases and appeals.  Make executions cheaper.

I dont know how old you are but this sounds like something a 14 year old would pull out of their ass.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok I'm listening. What nuance would you like to add? What wide reaching effects are being overlooked here? Let's have a look at them.

Well based on the lack of consideration you gave to the one point I mentioned, I see no value in providing more.

To be honest, the death penalty isn't even that big of an issue for me. But considering your point was  "Then it is an ineffective measure and should be discontinued.", I figured I would point out your flawed reasoning.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Your point that even more defendants would plead guilty than already do? I think I explained that I don't see that as a net positive.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you oppose the death penalty, then your fine with murderers living off of taxpayers for their life.
There are many other possibilities, please stop projecting your close minded views onto others.

Where for example does your consideration for wrongful convictions come into play? How many innocent lives is an acceptable cost to ensure all murderers are killed by the state?
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@secularmerlin
Your point that even more defendants would plead guilty than already do? I think I explained that I don't see that as a net positive.

It would depend on the proportion that are actually guilty vs not. Also, pleas save a lot of court time and money.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Oh, so now murder is okay? What makes the death penalty immoral? I's not murder. It's not malice, it's punishment.
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@949havoc
dont confuse punishment with revenge.
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,950
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
In case anyone else is having difficulty with the link...

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
It would depend on the proportion that are actually guilty vs not. Also, pleas save a lot of court time and money.
I do not have much faith that the rate of false convictions would go down if more people plead guilty. A step forward... in the wrong direction. 
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@secularmerlin
I don’t think the rate of false convictions would go down. I think less murderers would avoid jail time since the burden of proof is high for criminal cases 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don’t think the rate of false convictions would go down. I think less murderers would avoid jail time since the burden of proof is high for criminal cases 
Less innocent people would avoid jail time too. Is your goal to just execute everyone? That would certainly prevent future murder... of course there would be no more humans but trade offs are trade offs.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you know how plea bargains work? When you plea guilty, it is getting executions off the table much of the time. Generally you save everyone’s time and take life in prison.

So where on earth are you getting that I want “to just execute everyone”?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do you know how plea bargains work? When you plea guilty, it is getting executions off the table much of the time. Generally you save everyone’s time and take life in prison.

So where on earth are you getting that I want “to just execute everyone”?
Ah... so your goal is just to incarcerate all the humans! That's different. Still clearly a miscarriage of justice and just as clearly oppressing humans rather than protecting them from oppression but different from execution. 

I vote we start these mass incarcerations with anyone who supports the idea.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@secularmerlin
And your plan is to let all murderers roam free to kill again! Yay!
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
Kant supported the death penalty. According to him, it is "retributive justice".
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
And your plan is to let all murderers roam free to kill again! Yay!
My plan is to do whatever reduces the instances of murder effectively without stripping anyone of human rights and dignity. If that could be accomplished by letting murderers "run free" as you put it then I would be in favor of that solution. 
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
There are many other possibilities, please stop projecting your close minded views onto others.
How do we get it so murderers aren't a fiscal burden to the state?  The only way I'm thinking of is slave labor, but if you have them do construction work, this runs into 2 problems:

1) They would be taking jobs away from working class Americans.
2) They are going to do a worse job than those working class Americans.

Where for example does your consideration for wrongful convictions come into play? How many innocent lives is an acceptable cost to ensure all murderers are killed by the state?
Most people don't really care about the lives of strangers, this is why they aren't willing to spend $1/day to save a kid in Africa via sponsorship.  If people aren't willing to sacrifice $1/day to save an innocent child in Africa, I don't know why they would be willing to sacrifice $20/day through collective tax money to save some adult that probably committed murder.

I don't know the proportion of innocent deaths that is acceptable to execute all murderers.  But I have a high tolterance for risk, so that number is pretty high, especially since I don't want to spend money to save lives that are obviously innocent (like children in Africa).  If I'm unwilling to save kids in Africa, why would I be willing to save people in the US that probably committed murder?
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Check my bio to determine my age. 

P1: I refuse to pay more money to keep a murderer alive than a kid in Africa.
P2: I refuse to pay any money to keep a kid alive in Africa.

C1: I refuse to pay a single penny to keep a murderer alive.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Not true. Lobbying Congress is expensive. Just ask the petrol industry and big tobacco. 
I fail to see what this has to do with the death penalty.  Taxpayers don't pay for lobbyists, and private prisons have an incentive to oppose the death penalty because they have more prisoners to take care of so they can get more money from the government.

Again move to a better neighborhood. No one is forcing you to live by a murderer. It's a free country.
The neighborhood I live in in is pretty good.

Don't steal someone else's twenty dollars just because you are to lazy to move and invest in proper security. 
The $20 to execute someone is cheaper than the $2 million it takes to feed them for the rest of their lives.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
private prisons have an incentive to oppose the death penalty because they have more prisoners to take care of so they can get more money from the government.
Well that doesn't sound like a good system. Someone should probably change that.
The neighborhood I live in in is pretty good.
Lucky you. Still your philosophy seems to suggest that lif you lived next to a murderer that would be your problem not mine and it would be unreasonable to ask me for twenty dollars to fix the problem.
The $20 to execute someone is cheaper than the $2 million it takes to feed them for the rest of their lives.
This is not the reality of the situation. As things currently stand it us more expensive to execute. 
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Well that doesn't sound like a good system. Someone should probably change that.
I'm surprised you said that because private prisons (which the left hates) have an incentive to oppose the death penalty(something the left supports).
 Still your philosophy seems to suggest that lif you lived next to a murderer that would be your problem not mine and it would be unreasonable to ask me for twenty dollars to fix the problem.
The $20 is less than the $2 million needed to house somebody for their whole life for a murder charge.

 As things currently stand it us more expensive to execute. 
I've heard that, but what I would propose is cheaper executions.  We will make more mistakes, but the economic freedom generated from this idea is a legitimate trade off to saving lives as what precedence indicates.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm surprised you said that because private prisons (which the left hates) have an incentive to oppose the death penalty(something the left supports).
I do not support the left. They support the capitalist state. I do not support the right. They support the capitalist state. I do not support the privatization of prisons because it incentivizes incarceration through profit. Prisons should be incentivized to rehabilitate the guilty and to release the innocent. 
We will make more mistakes,
One innocent person executed is one to many... also if we support execution for those who kill innocent people who is got execute the executioner?
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I do not support the left. They support the capitalist state. 
The left tends to favor more socialization than the right (like with healthcare), but assuming your a socialist, that's a left wing ideology.

 I do not support the privatization of prisons because it incentivizes incarceration through profit.
Life in jail will generate more profit for prisons.

Prisons should be incentivized to rehabilitate the guilty and to release the innocent. 
Prisons should be fiscally neutral; meaning the labor generated from prisoners should pay for the costs of the prison.  With this being said, prison lengths should be shorter generally.

One innocent person executed is one to many... also if we support execution for those who kill innocent people who is got execute the executioner?
The executioner had no idea they were innocent; he thought they were guilty like the people who sentenced the prisoner to punishment.  People that are believed to be innocent by the justice system don't get punished.

The murderer on the other hand, killed people that he knew never committed murder.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
The left tends to favor more socialization than the right (like with healthcare), but assuming your a socialist, that's a left wing ideology.
The American democratic party supports the capitalist state. They are not left enough. 
Life in jail will generate more profit for prisons.
That seems like a huge problem that might lead to more innocent people incarcerated. Someone should probably change that. 
Prisons should be fiscally neutral; meaning the labor generated from prisoners should pay for the costs of the prison.  With this being said, prison lengths should be shorter generally.
Prisoners generating profit at slave wages is a slippery slope but I think we come closer to agreeing about this than anything so far so BULLY!!
The executioner had no idea they were innocent; he thought they were guilty like the people who sentenced the prisoner to punishment.  People that are believed to be innocent by the justice system don't get punished.

The murderer on the other hand, killed people that he knew never committed murder.
The state decides which killings qualify as murder. Murder is by definition an illegal killing. State sanctioned killing is not murder at all. That doesn't make state sanctioned killers innocent. In any case killing a person never prevents someone from being killed in the same way that falling pushing someone out a window never prevents a fall.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Most people don't really care about the lives of strangers, this is why they aren't willing to spend $1/day to save a kid in Africa via sponsorship.  If people aren't willing to sacrifice $1/day to save an innocent child in Africa, I don't know why they would be willing to sacrifice $20/day through collective tax money to save some adult that probably committed murder.
If I sent a dollar to every starving kid in Africa I would be homeless. The fact that I hold onto my money says nothing about whether I care about innocent lives being killed by the state.

This is not a serious post.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
That seems like a huge problem that might lead to more innocent people incarcerated. Someone should probably change that. 
You can usually only convict one person of murder.

Prisoners generating profit at slave wages is a slippery slope
How would it be a slippery slope?

State sanctioned killing is not murder at all. That doesn't make state sanctioned killers innocent.
Legally; it does.  Morally, it depends.  If you kill some middle eastern civilian because you knew you could get away with it, that would be murder and you should face the death penalty.  But if you kill someone whom other people have decided that they committed murder with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that's just implementing punishment.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
If I sent a dollar to every starving kid in Africa I would be homeless. The fact that I hold onto my money says nothing about whether I care about innocent lives being killed by the state.
If the richest 30% of bleeding heart liberals sent $2 a day to 2 separate starving African families with starving children(which only costs $1/day to do per kid), then they would save way more lives on a per dollar basis than they would if they spent the needed money on keeping guilty murderers alive.  Yet this doesn't happen.

If "bleeding heart liberals" aren't willing to make such a small and efficient sacrifice, why should I have to sacrifice a higher dollar to life ratio (because murderers are more expensive than African children) to save a murderer from getting executed?