HERE!!! address this post or stfu
Originally posted by Schecter
you are declaring that moneyalonedictates whether or not you believe human beings should be put to death.therefore i question whether you have a soul.
its really simple, when you stop and think about it. all the cliches about the money keepin the world a-goin-round doesnt change how ****ed up or even nonexistant your sense of morality and principles are. no offense.
:edit: and even if you're FOR the death penalty, ffs have a better reason than money. fukin hell
Originally posted by Dreampanther
No, actually, it doesn't. The cost of the LEGAL CASE is more, since you include all the appeals, all the postponements, all the legal costs, etc.Which I don't.
In SA last year we had more than 55 000 reported rape case (statistics indicate that the true figure is more than double that. We also had almost 20 000 murders.
Now take into account the cost of building new prisons, with new facilities, training and employing new warders - the costs involved to make sure that all these prisoners' rights are protected...
See, I read the same articles as you do, but I also know a little bit about research and statistics.
Very conveniently all the articles you refer to include all the legal costs of the death penalty trials and all their appeals - which only makes sense because the current law ALLOWS murderers and rapists to appeal, and appeal again, and again, and again...
But these same articles conveniently forget to add the costs that are involved with housing, feeding and clothing an increasing population of violent criminals, who prey on each other as ruthlessly inside the prisons as they do on innocents outside.
So, where does your morality stand on the fact that rape and assault is common inside prisons?
Are you soothing your conscience by arguing that well, they might be victims of violent assault, over and over and over again, but at least they aren't dead?
Yes, you clearly know something about statistics. That is, how to ignore certain aspects entirely, even when they are in fact completely relevant while making up other theoretical aspects that would help your argument. Congratulations on cherry picking data, and wholly making up new data.
The fact remains, when you take into account ALL data, and all aspects, legal cases included (it doesn't matter if you think that they shouldn't be allowed to appeal, fact is, under the current system, they can, thus it's relevant to the total cost) putting someone to death costs more.
Regardless, this is not something I care about, I was simply echoing the fact that it does indeed cost more, just for clarity.
There is a difference between the rape that occurs in prison, and the death that occurs through the death penalty. The difference is that the rape isn't done by the damn government. They aren't hiring someone to rape the prisoners. It's done by one prisoner to another illegally; if they're caught, they get in trouble. The death penalty is done legally, by the government, while at the same time CONDEMNING THE VERY ACT.
It's not a matter of soothing my conscience, it's a matter of not lowering yourself to the level of those you are condemning.
Originally posted by Schecter
HERE!!! adresss this post or stfu
I already have.
You don't see how your argument is fundamentally flawed? It assumes that my entire perspective is based on money being the only thing that could change my perspective. It has nothing to do with the word "alone" being the only thing I have against your "argument".
IF it cost less to keep a criminal incarcerated the rest of his life than it would to just simply to execute him, THEN I would gladly change my stance and say that we should no longer practice the death penalty or at least, we should improve the cost effectiveness thereof. YOU brought up the point of cost along with others................................I figured you could point me in the right direction instead of making flawed arguments and acting butthurt.
i crossed out "alone" and yet you persist in dancing. ok lets try again. this time ill just delete the word outright and maybe you're brain can process it properly. lets give it a try, k?
Originally posted by Schecter:
you are declaring that money dictates whether or not you believe human beings should be put to death.
therefore i question whether you have a soul.
its really simple, when you stop and think about it. all the cliches about the money keepin the world a-goin-round doesnt change how ****ed up or even nonexistant your sense of morality and principles are. no offense.
:edit: and even if you're FOR the death penalty, ffs have a better reason than money. fukin hell
Originally posted by Schecter
[Byou are declaring that money dictates whether or not you believe human beings should be put to death. [/B]
Money is one of the many things that dictate my being for or against the death penalty. As it stands..
Originally posted by dadudemon
IF it cost less to keep a criminal incarcerated the rest of his life than it would to just simply to execute him, THEN I would gladly change my stance and say that we should no longer practice the death penalty or at least, we should improve the cost effectiveness thereof. YOU brought up the point of cost along with others................................I figured you could point me in the right direction instead of making flawed arguments and acting butthurt.
This money argument you and others brought up would help tip my indecisiveness in favor of no death penalty. Did you miss that part?
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. You act as though you've cornered me into a "OMG yur so evil" corner. 😄
you have no idea of the concept of a flawed argument, or even an argument.
its an opinion, tink tink.
my opinion is that money has no place in deciding whether or not its ok to put a human being to death, and that to allow such a trivial matter to be a deciding factor is lacking in any humanity. very simple for those with an i.q. above that of a used tampon
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, you clearly know something about statistics. That is, how to ignore certain aspects entirely, even when they are in fact completely relevant while making up other theoretical aspects that would help your argument. Congratulations on cherry picking data, and wholly making up new data.The fact remains, when you take into account ALL data, and all aspects, legal cases included (it doesn't matter if you think that they shouldn't be allowed to appeal, fact is, under the current system, they can, thus it's relevant to the total cost) putting someone to death costs more.
Regardless, this is not something I care about, I was simply echoing the fact that it does indeed cost more, just for clarity.
There is a difference between the rape that occurs in prison, and the death that occurs through the death penalty. The difference is that the rape isn't done by the damn government. They aren't hiring someone to rape the prisoners. It's done by one prisoner to another illegally; if they're caught, they get in trouble. The death penalty is done legally, by the government, while at the same time CONDEMNING THE VERY ACT.
It's not a matter of soothing my conscience, it's a matter of not lowering yourself to the level of those you are condemning.
Aah, I thnk I begin to understand your argument. First, we are not allowed to question statistics, we should just accept them as gospel. We should never question whether they have included all the relevant factors and excluded all the irrelevant ones. We should never ask who did the research, and why they decided which factors to include.
Interesting theory... Yet, all my university career, I was taught to treat all statistics with scientific skepticism. Perhaps it's scientific research theory that has been wrong all along?
As for making up new data - actually, all I did was to point out that all the relevant data was never included in the original research...
As for the current system, which allows for appeal after appeal after appeal, and delay after delay after delay, all at the taxpayer's cost - well, I thought the whole point of this debate was to establish whether the current system, which you so dogmatically cling to, could do with some improving?
Finally, your point that the rape and violent assaults in prisons isn't the government's fault: The fact is, they do occur, regularly and repeatedly. Therefore, the government is failing in its stated objective - which is to protect the rights of prisoners to a safe environment while trying to rehabilitate them.
Therefore, the current system, which you seem so eager to protect, is already a failure. Therefore, it seems (fairly) obvious that it needs to change. Since it needs to change anyway, then, I merely propose that perhaps a complete overhaul seems appropriate, at this time...
You seem to be unable have on your conscience the execution of a convicted murderer, but yet you seem to be able to live in peace with the fact that by condemning a man to life-long imprisonment, you are already condemning him to a life without the basic human rights that you seem so passionately in favour of...
Originally posted by Schecter
you have no idea of the concept of a flawed argument, or even an argument.
its an opinion, tink tink.
ZOMG!!! So we weren't debating our perspectives...... 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕
Originally posted by Schecter
my opinion is that money has no place in deciding whether or not its ok to put a human being to death, and that to allow such a trivial matter to be a deciding factor is lacking in any humanity. very simple for those with an i.q. above that of a used tampon
Great...that is your opinion. Since it IS one of the deciding factors brought up when considering/debating the death penalty, your opinion is close minded.
Care to address the point addressed by "The Bet?"
Which is worse on the individual, life in prison or execution.
Originally posted by Dreampanther
You seem to be unable have on your conscience the execution of a convicted murderer, but yet you seem to be able to live in peace with the fact that by condemning a man to life-long imprisonment, you are already condemning him to a life without the basic human rights that you seem so passionately in favour of...
Well put. This is why it is hard for me to make a decision. It really is a decision of the lesser of two evils...if one can wade through their morals and decide which is less offensive to their perceived morals.
Originally posted by Dreampanther
on your conscience the execution of a convicted murderer, but yet you seem to be able to live in peace with the fact that by condemning a man to life-long imprisonment, you are already condemning him to a life without the basic human rights that you seem so passionately in favour of...
the modern prison system is based upon the theory that rehabilitation is possible, and with the hope that those who cannot be rehabilitated today may be reachable tomorrow. it is intended to be a system which betters the criminal instead of punishing them. if not, then it would have never been put into practice and we would still be executing people for lesser crimes. the possibility/probability that they will never be rehabilitated does not erase the possibility that they will, and even behind bars many find peace which they would never have achieved had they been put to death. your point that life in prison=torture/damnation across the board is factually incorrect.
Originally posted by Schecter
the possibility/probability that they will never be rehabilitated does not erase the possibility that they will, and even behind bars many find peace which they would never have achieved had they been put to death. your point that life in prison=torture across the board is factually incorrect.
Well put. This is the other perspective that conflicts with the previous one. This part, especially, is really hard for me to not to realize is a wonderful point of imprisonment:
"and even behind bars many find peace which they would never have achieved had they been put to death."
Even if we don't have souls, isn't that enough of a reason to NOT have the death penalty? That would be an optimists perspective.
Originally posted by Schecter
well if you are capable of pondering that then i cannot fathom how you could then turn around and think "then again there's the cost"
I don't expect you to understand how I can see and weigh all perspectives when you can't fathom how money would even be a factor.
It is called objective thinking...I try to do it when I approach important decisions like the death penalty. Don't let your personal biased cloud your judgment before you attempt weigh all the possibilities.
In a new light, I think I have finally come to a conclusion. A prisoner condemned to the death penatly should be spared the death penalty IF they show signs of wanting to change and IF they show remorse. Of course, this person would have to be reviewed by a professional and weighed against specific standards so that they are not killing or assaulting other inmates while professing remorse and having the mouth of an angel. This would solve my problems with the death penalty because I would be more than willing to allow tax dollars to be spent on someone who wanted to make themselves a better person. I can see flaws in my above argument and it opens up the door for more discussion. An overhaul of our prison system is needed, no doubt.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It is called objective thinking...I try to do it when I approach important decisions like the death penalty. Don't let your personal biased cloud your judgment before you attempt weigh all the possibilities.
that makes no sense.
your own personal bias involves money as well. learn what 'objective' means before you use it in a sentence