Originally posted by psmith81992The execution of the Pirate James Kidd.
I'm trying to find some.
He was spent less then a month in jail before being hanged. It was also a fairly common for pirates to be executed quickly after be sentenced to death by hanging.
Seriously man I'm not going to go through google to try and find exact dates for particular trails. Many ancient civilizations had trials that ended in the person being executed should they be found guilty. Look at the Romans sacrificing Christians and other people to the lions. Crucifying people and leaving them to die.
Swift executions(even without appeals) have been around a long time and they have never served to be a true deterrent to murder. You can't rewrite history just because you want to make a point.
Seriously man I'm not going to go through google to try and find exact dates for particular trails. Many ancient civilizations had trials that ended in the person being executed should they be found guilty. Look at the Romans sacrificing Christians and other people to the lions. Crucifying people and leaving them to die.Swift executions(even without appeals) have been around a long time and they have never served to be a true deterrent to murder. You can't rewrite history just because you want to make a point.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I think this was always the argument, and it wasn't so much that the death penalty was a deterrent, it's the entire appeals process that's a joke. I've said it before though, if legislature comes in and says "the death penalty will be carried out within a year of conviction," I sure as hell believe it will become a deterrent.
Originally posted by psmith81992I'm not sure logically what your last post is trying to say but for sake of argument.
And you can't claim that it deter murder if you don't have the facts to back it up. I never once claimed that it did.
Here you clearly say that you believe that if the death penalty will be carried out within a year of conviction the death penalty would become a deterrent.
Historically even with swift deaths, and yes there are plenty of facts to support this, have never stopped murders. I know this because murders were still taking place even after these swift executions.
"civilized" is just a ethnocentric label europeans and canadians like to parade around with it printed on their foreheads.
when they went to africa they said those people aren't civilized cause they like to throw spears and shit.
when they went to papua new guinea they said those people aren't civilized cause they like to eat witches and shit.
now they come over here saying us americans aren't civilized cause we still like to execute hardened criminals, murderers and baby rapers.
next it's gonna be you're not civilized until you eat salad with the salad fork, then it's you're not civilized until you elect a islamic mtf transgender president who issues a state of the union every day reminding us all to check our privilege while sporting a burqa.
well i say we don't need to take it from these european cowards anymore. they can take their civilization and they can shove it is what i say.
Here you clearly say that you believe that if the death penalty will be carried out within a year of conviction the death penalty would become a deterrent.
Historically even with swift deaths, and yes there are plenty of facts to support this, have never stopped murders. I know this because murders were still taking place even after these swift executions.
Originally posted by psmith81992The problem is that there has never been any clear cut distinction by facts that support the death penalty as a deterrent for murder. Those are the facts. So ifthe death penalty has never been proven to be a deterrent for murder why will it be different this time?
In today's society, I believe so.This is a strawman, I never said stop murders. Reducing murders alone is a deterrent. I don't see any facts here honestly.
The problem is that there has never been any clear cut distinction by facts that support the death penalty as a deterrent for murder. Those are the facts. So ifthe death penalty has never been proven to be a deterrent for murder why will it be different this time?
Civilized countries do not execute, torture or mutilate criminals.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think the only argument for the death penalty is that a small proportion of criminals are so dangerous and incapable of rejoining society...
OV's point seemed to focus solely on the ones that are beyond hope of rehabilitation, the very bottom of the bottom-dwellers.
Not the guy who gets thrown in a shit-hole for stealing $5,000.00 worth of merchandise and then 'learns' how to be a violent criminal while on the inside as a survival mechanism.
Civilized countries do not execute, torture or mutilate criminals.
You can't lock up a criminal and treat them like shit and then expect them to rehabilitate. That's not how the human psyche works.
Originally posted by psmith81992Is it possible? Yes.
Logically, do you not think that if we had a 1 year turnaround time, murders would decrease?
Looking at statistics: It seems that states that have the DP now, also have the higher rates of murder per capita, a few exceptions aside. So it's also logical too think that even upping Texas' current fastest execution rate to a year won't change much in terms of lowering murder rates. Some would argue more logical.
Mutilation, torture and murder isn't—and will never be—just.
They are. That's why they're called civil.