I only expect that you support your own argument,
ie, that executing murderers prevents more crime
than life in prison without parole.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
USA Death Penalty
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
ie, that executing murderers prevents more crime
than life in prison without parole.
PureX
Veteran Member
That was not my argument. My argument is that it ensures the security of the rest of society against a perpetual and catastrophic threat.
Support that argument.
And don't forget to include the security of
innocent people who end up on death row.
PureX
Veteran Member
A dead man connot possibly escape and kill again.
That's irrelevant since no innocent persons have ever been convicted or mass murder, serial murder, or terroristic murder carried out in a way that indicates they will do so again if they are afforded the opportunity.
Was that Pennsylvanian murderer's (who was caught without killing again, BTW) original conviction the sort that you said should be a capital offense?
And BTW: People escape from death row, too. I don't have totals, but there are at least 10 death row inmates on this list: List of prison escapes - Wikipedia
So a certain rate of escapes - and whatever risk comes with them - is still present with the death penalty. Do you have any reason to think that the death penalty has a lower rate of escapes than life imprisonment does?
Can you find any incident in the last, say, 50 years where:
- An inmate was in prison serving life imprisonment for a crime you're arguing should have a capital sentence,
- They escaped and killed another person,
- The escape happened at least 19 years after they began their life sentence (since the current average time an inmate serves on death row is 227 months... 18.9 years)
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Ah, it's the Alan Partridge logic.
"There's no evidence to show that capital punishment would reduce the crime statistics."
"Well, it'd reduce it by one, wouldn't it."
Interesting. And how many killers have escaped death row and killed again?
Well that's not true.
McBell
Unbound
How many innocent people have been put to death by the death penalty?
What is the acceptable number of innocent people killed by the death penalty?
Your nonsense above is simply nonsense.
The fact of the matter is that there have been innocents killed by the death penalty.
Your dishonesty makes it impossible to take you seriously on this topic.
An innocent person executed cannot have their
conviction over-turned, & their sentence rescinded.
Your way has government doing the murdering.
And a lot of it.
Guildford Four and Maguire Seven - Wikipedia
PureX
Veteran Member
Why do the "what if's" only count when it's about wrongful convictions, but they don't count when it's about escaped killers? And if you can't prove anyone was wrongfully convicted of mass murder, serial murder, or terroristic murder, why do I have to prove some that one has escaped prison to kill again.
Ya'lls knees are jerking so hard that your brains ain't working.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I'm mirroring your argument. If it's irrelevant to argue that we shouldn't execute people because of the potential of false convictions because they rarely (or never) happen in the manner you describe, then YOUR argument that we ought to kill them to prevent them from escaping and killing again is irrelevant because that has literally never happened.
And people who have been falsely accused and executed isn't a "what if". They do happen.
They have been. See the posts above.
Says the guy claiming that killing people is a great way to prevent people dying.
Ya'll are channelling Josef Stalin.
PureX
Veteran Member
Killing someone that has already killed multiple people and shows every indication that they'll kill more if they get the chance will absolutely assure, without any doubt, that they will not kill any more people. It's as simple as that. And you have no alternative scenario that can absolutely assure this. So I am going to ignore all further knee-jerk arguments, now, as they are all just irrational attempts at placating the various egos involved.
McBell
Unbound
Has anyone disagreed with this statement?
I have to ask because I have not seen a single person disagree with it.
Your fear of the topic is duly noted.
Why not kill all criminals convicted of
violent crimes? They'd never perpetrate
any crimes again.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Yes, decisions should be made, but preferably reversible decisions for the times we get it wrong.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
So will locking them up for life. And doing so also ensures the state doesn't kill an innocent man, which is a thing that happens, unlike your virtually imaginary scenario.
It's a good thing the law and human rights isn't simple, then.
Locking them up for life.
You have no alternative scenario that can absolutely assure no innocent people will be executed. So, I prefer just not giving the state the power to judicially execute people.
Not a knee-jerk argument to say your logic is entirely contradictory.
"We can dismiss all cases of innocent people being murdered by the state as irrelevant, because it rarely happens. However, my entirely hypothetical scenario in which an absolutely-definitely-100%-mass murderer escapes life imprisonment and kills more people, despite never having happened ever, is absolutely relevant and the only perspective or possibility worth considering, yes siree!"
Altfish
Veteran Member
Yes they have; check UK law, terrorist bombers were convicted of mass murder and later released when fresh evidence was unearthed.
As I recall, he said innocent people are
never wrongly convicted of such crimes.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Yes, and Trump never said "Bigley"