A Guy Beat, Raped, Shot, and Buried Alive a 19 Year Old Girl. Guess Who's The Victim?

[Paprika]

I can't imagine a much less painful method than instantly severing every nerve ending below the neck. Although I hear that carbon monoxide and hypothermia are painless ways to go.

You see, sometimes the falling blade stalls in mid-way and only part of the neck is cut through...

Though I am agreed, it are more painful execution methods.

[Tassman]

TASSMAN IS BACK. It may be time to dust off my old genocide apologia again

Utter nonsense. It's precisely the lack of effective retribution for enormous crimes that desensitizes the criminal population to commit greater cruelties. And that motivates the non-criminal classes toward ever more byzantine and drastic methods of crime avoidance that end up destroying the community spirit. And that's just not right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

The punitive mentality of the USA, far from deterring crime, appears to have the opposite effect; The US has the highest rates of incarceration in the world. By far!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...rldwide_ZP.svg

"Enlightened?" Cracka, you sayin' you better than brown people?

"Enlightened" society is at fault for not uplifting them via harsh penalties for the lawbreakers among them, yes.

The US penalties are much harsher than in comparable countries and yet the US is statistically a more violent society than the other advanced nations. Clearly the USA approach is not working; quite the reverse.

And far less effective.

The statistics say otherwise.

Which gains a lot of its popularity in Western countries precisely due to its willingness to do extralegally what the legal system is not willing to do. The only reason all you Australian criminals aren't murdering each other in trapdoor kangaroo caves is due to the previous population being willing to kill who was necessary to keep Australian civilization going.

Then you need to explain why homicide rates are significantly lower in Australia (and comparable countries) than they are in the USA where you still kill your most violent wrong-doers.

I believe the consistent Christian view of incarceration should be for the purpose of protection of society, not for extracting revenge, as per Romans 12:19. (This isn't inconsistent with capital punishment if one thought it was the best means to protect society, though it is notable that studies have shown that it isn't a deterrence in the US. Maybe it would be if executions were public, I don't know.)

[Darth Executor]

The US penalties are much harsher than in comparable countries and yet the US is statistically a more violent society than the other advanced nations. Clearly the USA approach is not working; quite the reverse.

It started raining outside because a lot of people took out their umbrellas.

[seer]

It started raining outside because a lot of people took out their umbrellas.

Yes, a non-sequitur.

[seer]

So you are against the genocide of the unborn?

So what makes you think there is a correlation? Are you suggesting that if we ended the death penalty that murder rates will go down?

[Leonhard]

So you are against the genocide of the unborn?

Loaded-question fallacy, you're assuming that Tassman agrees that the unborn are humans, which is unlikely to be true.

Also this is not relevant to the discussion of the death penalty, at most (and only if successful) you would have pointed out that there's an inconsistency in how he applies his principle. If not you'll merely have him explain that he doesn't consider it genocide to kill the unborn. Most likely you'd drag the discussion into abortion, instead of staying on topic at that point as you'd want to make this point instead.

[Bill the Cat]

Remind me again, how hanging someone, or shooting someone in the head, is more "Cruel or unusual" than injecting poison into their veins? Seriously, the fact that people see a problem with the former, and not the latter, is just ridiculous.

I don't see a problem with any of them. Like Ron White said, I would put in an express lane.

[seer]

Loaded-question fallacy, you're assuming that Tassman agrees that the unborn are humans, which is unlikely to be true.

Well of course if he doesn't think that unborn human beings are human, then what does he believe they are - plant life? And if it is that subjective perhaps we could just decide that a convicted murder is no longer "human." This is what happen when we remove all ontological consideration when it comes to human beings.

Also this is not relevant to the discussion of the death penalty, at most (and only if successful) you would have pointed out that there's an inconsistency in how he applies his principle. If not you'll merely have him explain that he doesn't consider it genocide to kill the unborn. Most likely you'd drag the discussion into abortion, instead of staying on topic at that point as you'd want to make this point instead.

No, it is more like a deep hypocrisy. It is perfectly acceptable to kill an innocent unborn baby, but not a guilty killer.

[Bill the Cat]

To my knowledge capital punishment has not been shown to be a deterrent wherever studies have been done.

There are reasons. Nearly all of the studies lump all types of murders together, and since the death penalty is used so rarely in relation to the amount of murders that occur, it becomes impossible to estimate the success of the deterrence angle. The only study that broke out the types of murders found less domestic related murders in states where the death penalty is in play while non-domestic murders are unaffected. Also, there is no real way to test deterrence among murderers, nor are there any studies showing their awareness of how many executions occur in their own state, much less in other states. There are also no studies conducted of those who attempted to commit murder but "changed their mind" for varying reasons. So, while the topic has been attempted, the methodology for claims similar to yours are insufficient at best to make a positive statement of lack of correlation.

[seer]

There are reasons. Nearly all of the studies lump all types of murders together, and since the death penalty is used so rarely in relation to the amount of murders that occur, it becomes impossible to estimate the success of the deterrence angle. The only study that broke out the types of murders found less domestic related murders in states where the death penalty is in play while non-domestic murders are unaffected. Also, there is no real way to test deterrence among murderers, nor are there any studies showing their awareness of how many executions occur in their own state, much less in other states. There are also no studies conducted of those who attempted to commit murder but "changed their mind" for varying reasons. So, while the topic has been attempted, the methodology for claims similar to yours are insufficient at best to make a positive statement of lack of correlation.

And let me add that capital punishment is a 100% full proof deterrent. That criminal will never kill anyone again. I spent a number of years in Prison ministry - and the Correction officers told us more than one, that the "lifers" were the most dangerous inmates - to them and other prisoners. Men, who in former times, would have been put to death.

[Teallaura]

The state didn't match cruelty for cruelty. If it had they would have brought in some other men to rape him, then shot him and buried him alive. Though I'm a bit iffy on what you mean when you say it's the state's job to ensure justice, but that it would not be justice to match cruelty for cruelty. Isn't that what justice is, making sure the punishment fits the crime? I don't see how a slow agonizing death isn't a fit punishment for a slow agonizing death.

The premise that the murder was horrific therefore the execution should be was the point I was addressing - and since it's unconstitutional to use 'slow, agonizing death' in execution the premise will result in another moratorium on execution so unless DP advocates want that, they should be concerned about getting this fixed.

I agree the state didn't intentionally match cruelty - but the tenor of this thread seemed to be calling for it so I addressed it.

And no, justice isn't about the punishment fitting the crime in the sense of matching severity - it's about punishment not exceeding the crime.

A firing squad with modern weapon improvements would solve this problem. Maybe sell him to Lockheed Martin for some live testing of new weapon prototypes. I can think of worse ways to go out than having the honor of being the first man killed by a rail gun or smart gun getting ready for mass production.

I'm pretty sure that falls under 'unusual'.

Done properly, lethal injection has a proven track record. We don't need to re-invent the wheel if we're gonna waste all that time, money and effort killing the (for the sake of argument, presumed guilty) murderer.

We should toss out that particular wheel and put the money into other things besides lawyers and courts but that's an argument for another thread.

[Teallaura]

And let me add that capital punishment is a 100% full proof deterrent. That criminal will never kill anyone again. I spent a number of years in Prison ministry - and the Correction officers told us more than one, that the "lifers" were the most dangerous inmates - to them and other prisoners. Men, who in former times, would have been put to death.

It is not a 100% deterrent - you're describing prevention, not deterrence. Deterrence is stopping someone else from doing the same deed - and the studies are all over the map as to whether or not it actually works. I'll concede is does work somewhat - but so does life imprisonment and it's a danged site easier and cheaper to implement.

[Sparko]

It is not a 100% deterrent - you're describing prevention, not deterrence. Deterrence is stopping someone else from doing the same deed - and the studies are all over the map as to whether or not it actually works. I'll concede is does work somewhat - but so does life imprisonment and it's a danged site easier and cheaper to implement.

How is it cheaper? Seems like keeping someone alive, with room, board, medical costs, etc for 30+ years would be more expensive than holding them for around 5 years then executing them.

[Leonhard]

How is it cheaper? Seems like keeping someone alive, with room, board, medical costs, etc for 30+ years would be more expensive than holding them for around 5 years then executing them.

Court isn't cheap.

[Leonhard]

And let me add that capital punishment is a 100% full proof deterrent. That criminal will never kill anyone again.

That's prevention that's not deterrence.

Well of course if he doesn't think that unborn human beings are human, then what does he believe they are - plant life?

Irrelevant.

And if it is that subjective

I said nothing about it being subjective. You're going to have an uphill battle convincing anyone of anything seer, if you keep putting words in peoples mouthes. I warned you that you were committing an odious logical fallacy - hardly something that will be convincing to Tassman - and rather than conceding this after I pointing it out now you're trying to defend yourself.

No, it is more like a deep hypocrisy. It is perfectly acceptable to kill an innocent unborn baby, but not a guilty killer.

It wouldn't be hypocrisy unless Tasmann publicly believed that the unborns are innocent babies. We both agree that they are, but as long as he doesn't he can't be guilty of hypocrisy, just inconsistency and a negligent conscience.