-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Capital Punishment
- Thread starter Koios
- Start date
Werbung:
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
Hi Sub - handbags at 10 paces with the colonials I see....I'll see if I can rustle up a cuppa for you at half time 
Look mate all squabbling aside for a sec and forgetting the distraction of feotal cells and all that jazz.... why can't a population expect a degree of vengence from its penal code?
I think you have to sate that herd desire for justice and I mean justice with a capital JUSTICE...for example our wee island is packed to the gunnals and if somats not done about the black's in London knifing themselves to pieces everyday for example there will be vigilanties on the street pretty soon. I mean this turd Bigdy that was knifed in Oxford Street the other day deserved everything he got judging by the form he had. I can see that kind of street justice burgeoning!
I think liberalism is fine if everything is tickertyboo in the world but it ain't buddy...we're floundering around in a cesspit with so much tension and violence and weak ineffective leadership. Strong leadership mate, that's what's called for at the moment and if that means draconian laws for a while then it has to be! The quality of governance is lacking in our society we need to get it back.
Look mate all squabbling aside for a sec and forgetting the distraction of feotal cells and all that jazz.... why can't a population expect a degree of vengence from its penal code?
I think you have to sate that herd desire for justice and I mean justice with a capital JUSTICE...for example our wee island is packed to the gunnals and if somats not done about the black's in London knifing themselves to pieces everyday for example there will be vigilanties on the street pretty soon. I mean this turd Bigdy that was knifed in Oxford Street the other day deserved everything he got judging by the form he had. I can see that kind of street justice burgeoning!
I think liberalism is fine if everything is tickertyboo in the world but it ain't buddy...we're floundering around in a cesspit with so much tension and violence and weak ineffective leadership. Strong leadership mate, that's what's called for at the moment and if that means draconian laws for a while then it has to be! The quality of governance is lacking in our society we need to get it back.
What an idiot you are!
The rights you are talking about, privacy for one, NECESSARILY AND LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from the rights mentioned in the constitution.
Only a complete dunce would mix up the principles of the american constitution with the code of hammurabi (eye for an eye).
More pleasant than in idiotsville where you live, I'm afraid.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w5268
Steven D. Levitt
NBER Working Paper No. 5268*
Issued in September 1995
NBER Program(s): PE
---- Abstract -----
A strong, negative empirical correlation exists between arrest rates and reported crime rates. While this relationship has often been interpreted as support for the deterrence hypothesis, it is equally consistent with incapacitation effects, and/or a spurious correlation that would be induced by measurement error in reported crime rates. This paper attempts to discriminate between deterrence, incapacitation, and measurement error as explanations for the empirical relationship between arrest rates and crime. Using a modified version of the techniques of Griliches and Hausman (1986) for dealing with measurement error in panel data, this paper first demonstrates that the presence of measurement error does not appear to explain the observed relationship between arrest rates and crime rates. To differentiate between deterrence and incapacitation, the impact of changes in the arrest rate for one crime on the rate of other crimes is examined. In contrast to the effect of increased arrests for one crime on the commission of that crime, where deterrence and incapacitation are indistinguishable, it is demonstrated that these two forces act in opposite directions when looking across crimes. Incapacitation suggests that an increase in the arrest rate for one crime will reduce all crime rates; deterrence predicts that an increase in the arrest rate for one crime will lead to a rise in other crimes as criminals substitute away from the first crime. Empirically, deterrence appears to be the more important factor, particularly for property crimes.
*Published: Levitt, Steven D. "Why Do Increased Arrest Rates Appear To Reduce Crime: Deterrence, Incapacitation, Or Measurement Error?," Economic Inquiry, 1998, v36(3,Jul), 353-372.
Duh?
You offered an argument that is NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND LOGIC --hence, INVALID.
Duh?
all that paper was saying is "arrest rates lower crime." wow. holy ****. i would have never thought of that.(rolls eyes) if you arrest people than they cant commit crimes....... becuase they are in jail! that doesnt mean that people will be less likely to murder someone if we remove the death penalty. i fail to see how that little report, that you stole from someone else, helps to back up your arguement that the death penalty isnt a detterent. maybe the death penalty would be more of an effective detterent if all you liberals wouldn't keep us from using it. death penalty rates have dropped over the years considerably. also homicide rates have risen over the years. if it isnt an effective detterent than look in the mirror and you will see who is to blame
how am i attacking you personaly? im attacking your comments. its not like im insulting your mother.
I don't feel that I should have to feed someone who murdered someone else for the rest of his "life without parole" sentence. If you willfully take another life for greedy purposes, then why do YOU deserve to live? Of course it would be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers if everyone got a life sentence, and the length of that sentence was decided by who out of the kindness of their heart wanted to keep paying to feed you. When "donations" run out, so does your life sentence.
im supprised all the peolpe on this thread just keep on overlooking the fact that THIS PERSON KILLED SOMEONE FOR THEIR OWN SELFISH REASONS. do they have no sense of justice? why should someone who has taken someone else's right to life, be able to keep theirs? instead of punishing them we are FEEDING them and SHELTERING them. it is a perversion of justice. they just cant comprehend the fact that some people deserve to die.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
They have far fewer liberal controlled metropolitian centers which are the source of most of the crime in both the US and Canada. Look out in the "sticks" where morals are not laughed at as "terribly provential" and you will find very low crime rates.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
On the day when every unborn gets his or her day in court, is judged guilty of a capital offense by a jury and that unborn gets the requisite appeals and re appeals, then you won't hear a peep from most "pro lifers" on the subject of killing unborn human beings.
It is pathetic that you seem unable to differentiate between being convicted by the legal system and having all of the requisite appeals and waiting periods and allowing a woman to kill her child with no legal consequence for any or no reason.
At least you could attempt to make the appearance of an intellectually honest argument. You aren't mare after all.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Are you arguing that abortions happen to unborns at the 4 cell stage? Not that it matters, but an unborn at that stage is as human as it will ever get. It will grow and mature if left alone, but become more human, sorry, it isn't going to happen.
Let me ask you a question and be honest. I know you can do it. Would you prefer a system where you got your day in court and took your chances that you might be convicted wrongly or would you prefer the sort of system that would allow someone to simply kill you for any or no reason at all and not even have a thought about possible legal consequences?
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Context mare. "Do not judge, lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1).
Jesus' comment is almost universally misunderstood (or mischaracterized) because of an inherent conflict in the condemnation of judging that goes unnoticed to almost everyone but Him.
The problem is that judgment always requires evaluation. Taken out of context, the statement poses a problem. The statement "You shouldn't judge" is self-refuting, being itself an example of judgment.
Jesus qualified His comment though.
And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?...You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:3, 5)
Jesus didn't say that we have no right to judge, he only condemned hypocritical judgment. Not all judgments fall into that category. In fact, even in this passage Jesus actually enjoins a different kind of judgment once the hypocrisy has been dealt with ("first take the log out of your own eye, then").
There are a couple of other kinds of judging descibed in the bible that are not condemned, but rather are, in fact, commanded. Some judgments are judicial, proper when done by proper authorities. Judges judge. They pass sentence. That's their job. (Matthew 18:15-20, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, Galatians 6:1).
If you study the bible in context, you will see that Jesus did not come initially for this kind of judgment. He offered mercy, not sentencing (John 3:17, 12:47) - but He will certainly return with this kind. Appointed by the father as final judge (John 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42, 17:31), He will spare no one.
All sorts of judgments are advised. Appraisals of right or wrong, wise or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational. Those sorts of judgments are not forbidden; and in fact, are commanded. Jesus' instructions "Do not give what is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6) require this kind of judgment.
Some judgements are moral. Paul charges us with this kind of judgment: "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them" (Ephesians 5:11). This is to be done not "according to appearance," but by "righteous" standards (John 7:24)
A judicial action, a factual assessment, a hypocritical arrogance - each is a type of judgement. Only the hypocritical arrogance, that is, pointing out the speck in your brother's eye when there is a log in your own) is disqualified by Jesus. The first two are actually virtues in their proper settings, and therefore commanded by Scripture.
Intellectual dishonesty doesn't serve your purpose mare. If you are going to argue using the bible, then you could at least try to get it right and save me all this typing.
Palerider, in this instance I am simply questioning how you can support the death penalty but not abortion. Don't you see the logical flaw in risking an innocent mans life because of a false conviction and allowing the abortion of an "inoccent" few cells?
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
No, I don't see a logical flaw. One is the result of a painstaking legal system and the other is nothing more than a decision by a single individual to kill another individual.
I would like to see stricter standards of evidence in order to get a conviction for capital punishment, but tere are those who simply do not deserve to live out thier lives.
Werbung:
What is pathetic is your inability to adhere to a principle in a manner that is logical and consistent.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable
The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be SURRENDERED. They are by definition, rights retained by the people. Inalienable rights may be defined as natural rights or human rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable.
