The impending execution of Stanley "Tookie" Willia

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:49 pm

ppl who r against the death penalty need to be executed!...

Post by **Jackal** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:49 pm

riddla wrote:I'd also like to see those graphs correlated with economics and mean IQ.

As is they're pretty weak.

You can't use IQ as a variable as there is no set way to measure someone's IQ.
Not to mention the fact that IQ could have nothing to do with anything.

Post by **prince1000** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:50 pm

riddla wrote:I'd also like to see those graphs correlated with economics and mean IQ.

As is they're pretty weak.

i bet you it's poor undereducated people on death row.

Post by **Hannibal** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:53 pm

Underswine9 and anybody else....IMO the burden of proof is on the pro-death pentalty peeps...those who want to sanction killing AS punishment. The strongly held moral intuition of "don't be killin'" can't be chuffed away without argument. Obviously this idea is subject to certain ceteris paribus modifications (i.e., self-defense), but it isn't very obvious to me how state sponsored killing qua punishment would fit.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:53 pm

that moron has 9 hours to live...bwhahaha...loooser....

Post by **werldhed** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:56 pm

Underpants? wrote: I've been on the fence for some time about this, then again have never been a victim of violent crime, where that opinion might change. Imagine the person closest to you slaughtered for a few paltry dollars by a person who's never been a functional member of society. You learn after some research that this isn't an isolated event; that prisons are overwhelmed with this type of scum. What if after even further research you learn that some of them are let out after such crimes because of the overpopulation problem, and that indeed your new friend was let go after a 10 year sentence for murder (aka manslaughter), to perpetuate his destiny and, susequently, yours. What would be your thoughts, then?
No one mentions murders committed inside the instittution by this type of person, either?
many questions, dunce100000000, many questions...

Faulty argument, for the simple reason that I can answer, "I would still not support the death penalty." A friend of mine was kidnapped and killed, and I can honestly say I don't have any desire to see the perpetrator put to death because of it.

According to the Supreme Court, the death penaly is meant to serve 3 purposes: deterrence, removal from society, and retribution. Deterrence has never been shown to be effective, removal from society can be accomplished as efficiently by imprisonment, and anyone who feels a need to enact eye-for-an-eye needs to be removed from society themselves. Add to this the very real possibility of executing the wrong person, and you have a useless and even harmful policy.

Post by **Canis** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:58 pm

Hannibal wrote:Underswine9 and anybody else....IMO the burden of proof is on the pro-death pentalty peeps...those who want to sanction killing AS punishment. The strongly held moral intuition of "don't be killin'" can't be chuffed away without argument. Obviously this idea is subject to certain ceteris paribus modifications (i.e., self-defense), but it isn't very obvious to me how state sponsored killing qua punishment would fit.

That's the reason I dont agree with this execution. There's apparently much circumstantial evidence that was used to convict him, which I dont agree should result in a death sentence.

Post by **R00k** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:58 pm

R00k wrote:Again, this isn't just some common homicidal joe - this is the one person who has the ear of a massive number of violent gang members, and who is willing to try to convince them to stop violent activities.

And we're killing the fucking guy? :icon27:

Post by **Hannibal** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:01 pm

Lo, I shall be rehabilitated in death.

Post by **prince1000** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:02 pm

maybe he'll finally get that nobel

Post by **prince1000** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:04 pm

goddamn, arnold is actually a governor. fuck.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:04 pm

heres the deal...if tookie is innocent....the injection will not hurt him...if he dies...we all know he did it...good nuff?...

Post by **R00k** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:09 pm

Hannibal wrote:Lo, I shall be rehabilitated in death.

More like rebuffed with a twist of ironic retribution.

Post by **Underpants?** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:10 pm

Hannibal wrote:Underswine9 and anybody else....IMO the burden of proof is on the pro-death pentalty peeps...those who want to sanction killing AS punishment. The strongly held moral intuition of "don't be killin'" can't be chuffed away without argument. Obviously this idea is subject to certain ceteris paribus modifications (i.e., self-defense), but it isn't very obvious to me how state sponsored killing qua punishment would fit.

good idea, let everyone else do the work so you can sit on your lazy hippy ass nit-picking technicalities, not stating reasonable alternatives. Meanwhile, I'll continue to play the devil's advocate just to piss trustafarians like you off.

Post by **prince1000** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:13 pm

NOT KILLING SOMEONE IS ONE ALTERNATIVE, AND MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT.

Post by **Underpants?** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:14 pm

werldhed wrote:
Faulty argument, .....
removal from society can be accomplished as efficiently by imprisonment...

only if efficiency does not relative to fiscal burden on society, then yes, just as efficiently.

Post by **R00k** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:16 pm

In that case, the reason to kill is not to remove one from society, but to save a few bucks.

Post by **Underpants?** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:19 pm

prince1000 wrote:NOT KILLING SOMEONE IS ONE ALTERNATIVE, AND MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT.

once again, I wilt in the blinding power of your sharp wit and resourceful arguments

Post by **Hannibal** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:20 pm

Underpants? wrote: good idea, let everyone else do the work so you can sit on your lazy hippy ass nit-picking technicalities, not stating reasonable alternatives. Meanwhile, I'll continue to play the devil's advocate just to piss trustafarians like you off.

Apparently reading is not fundamental. My bad. Seriously, did you not understand my point or are you just a fucking retard?

Post by **prince1000** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:23 pm

riddla wrote:
prince1000 wrote:NOT KILLING SOMEONE IS ONE ALTERNATIVE, AND MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT.
and how do you best get that message across to those who choose to take a life?

A lot of grey area with either stance.

certainly not by killing them...duh.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:25 pm

okay fine lets look and see if urban density affects the outcome of this graph.

note: no significant difference in states with versus states without the death penalty in terms of murder rate per 100000.

with me so far?

rank of urban density year 2000

Wash DC 1
NY 2
Cal 3
Nev 4
Hawaii 5
Illinois 6
Col 7
Utah 8
NJ 9
Arizona 10
oregon 11
Nebraska 12
Maryland 13
ND 14
RI 15

Ind 35
Wy 36
Mon 37
Ken 38
NM 39
Conn 40
Alaska 41
Ver 42
Georgia 43
Ark 44
Miss 45
Tenn 46
WV 47
Maine 48
Alabama 49
NC 50
NH 51
SC 52

is density affecting a 'deterrence effect'? no.

Post by **Underpants?** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:25 pm

R00k wrote:In that case, the reason to kill is not to remove one from society, but to save a few bucks.

a few million bucks. Get yer facts straight rookie.
actually, we're veering off course, here and apparently delving into the murk of heinous capital eastern punishment philosophies.
How can the system better accomodate things than it does now, where an overburdened system allows the lesser of two murderers to be let off early for good behavior? Throwing more money at the problem and building larger prisons has been the trend of the past. Seems that effort is apparently a massive failure, as well. Can someone name a better alternative for permanent removal of unrehab-able psychos?

Post by **booker** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:28 pm

kill him

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:30 pm

if killing is wrong then state sponsored killing sends the wrong message

Post by **Underpants?** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:32 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:if killing is wrong then state sponsored killing sends the wrong message

thank you, finally a rebutal with teeth.
I say ship them all off to Canada and be done with it. No argument against that idea will ever hold up.