Poll:- life better now or in 1959?

[SirJosephPorter]

If you keep on fabricating "facts" in your head to try and make your points, I'm gonna' have to quit debating with you.

I do enjoy discussing issues with you. But if you want to stop debating me, well, that is your call.

 

[JLM]

That is still not foolproof, JLM. There is never a 100% guarantee that a convicted criminal really is guilty of the crime. And law doesn’t require a 100 % guarantee, the standard of criminal law is guilty ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ not guilty ‘beyond all doubt’.

But in other sentences (life without parole etc.), if it is later discovered that the person convinced was innocent of the crime, the state can at least try to make partial amends (though if he has spent 15 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, there really is no way to make full amends). However, when somebody is executed, there is no way to make amends, death penalty is irreversible.

Your argument there simply doesn't fly in any way shape or form. There is NOTHING in this world that is 100% guaranteed- what you have to use is the prepondence of the evidence. Denying use of Old Sparky just because there is one chance in 238 billion that the guy is tecnically not guilty just won't cut it. Also like I've said before you wouldn't sentence him on a single proof. But if besides D.N.A. someone took a photograph of him doing it, that's good enough........."off to Old Sparky with you" and not in 20 years, in seven days (ample time to prepare the guy's favourite meal)

 

[AnnaG]

Also, since they did not practice contraception in those days (and abortion was not an option), I assume you would be be to impregnate them rather easily (if you care about such things).

Who didn't practise contraception in 1959? Your relatives? Your parents?Too bad. You might want to stick to the few things you actually know something about.
In 1959 there was the IUD, the pill, prophylactics, and abstention. A lot of girls just didn't go far because the stigma attached to a child having no father was intense. Nowadays, ones father could be some goat who had a one night stand with a girl, never seen again, and no-one even blinks.

 

[AnnaG]

OK, I think we have a misunderstanding of the word ‘responsible’ here. I am using the word responsible in the sense that the Parole board is charged with the task of deciding the prisoner release, that they are responsible.

I think you are using it in the sense, that Parole Board is not acting responsibly, that they are acting recklessly.

Anyway, I fail to see how it is the fault of today’s era. If you think that Parole Board is not behaving responsibly, then it is the fault of the Parole Board.

Same for the actions of police? Or the decisions of judges? or the abilities of lawyers? Yeah, can't blame society for fertilizing incompetence. :roll:

 

[JLM]

Who didn't practise contraception in 1959? Your relatives? Your parents?Too bad. You might want to stick to the few things you actually know something about.
In 1959 there was the UID, the pill, prophylactics, and abstention. A lot of girls just didn't go far because the stigma attached to a child having no father was intense. Nowadays, ones father could be some goat who had a one night stand with a girl, never seen again, and no-one even blinks.

Yep, I paused for a moment when I saw that one but let it go figuring maybe his mind just got stuck between gears for a moment.

 

[AnnaG]

You mean someone like Trudeau?

Preferably someone better than that pseudogod of yours.

 

[AnnaG]

Quite so, TenPenny. Look at Trudeau. He was an energetic, charismatic politician, he took the country by storm, he was well liked, well loved up to the very end. He influenced Canadian society in a profound manner, and to the good, in my opinion (and also in the opinion of a great majority of Canadians, I think about 70% of Canadians like the Charter).

Yet there are people who claim that he was the worst PM ever.

Noooo. He was nowhere near the worst PM. He was a god. He could do nothing wrong. Canada was nothing but a flop before his 15 year stint and it has been a flop ever since. I cannot understand why he hasn't been canonized. In fact, I can't understand why there is any religions other than Pierrism anywhere on the planet. 8O

 

[Spade]

"Upon this stone (pierre), I will build my Church" - Yeshua ben David

 

[AnnaG]

DNA evidence is also subject to error, countryboy. It may not be handled properly, it may be contaminated, there may be a mix up of DNAs, there may not be any DNA at the scene of the crime etc. DNA is definitely not the magic bullet, we cannot say for certain that the wrong person may not be convinced and executed.

DNA does not lie. People are the error factor in DNA ID.

And you have a point when you say that cost is irrelevant in the debate about death penalty, it is the principle that matters. I am opposed to death penalty on principle, I don’t think cold blooded, premeditated killing by the government is ever justified (and there is no evidence that it acts as a deterrent anyway, USA has the death penalty and also one of the highest crime rates in the developed world).

It is just that in USA, many ignoramuses have claimed that it is cheaper to execute somebody than it is to lock them up for life without parole. Such a misconception must be answered. The answer is, it is more expensive to execute somebody than to lock them up for life.

That is not hard fact. Try calculating the cost to society of keeping a 17 year old alive in prison for the next 60 years or so. Especially if he's such a critter as Olsen and has to be babysat and segrgated from other prisoners.
"Ah, whatta maroon" - B. Bunny.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Your argument there simply doesn't fly in any way shape or form. There is NOTHING in this world that is 100% guaranteed- what you have to use is the prepondence of the evidence. Denying use of Old Sparky just because there is one chance in 238 billion that the guy is tecnically not guilty just won't cut it. Also like I've said before you wouldn't sentence him on a single proof. But if besides D.N.A. someone took a photograph of him doing it, that's good enough........."off to Old Sparky with you" and not in 20 years, in seven days (ample time to prepare the guy's favourite meal)

Again, going back to what I said in previous post, if you are saying that it is OK if appeal for robbery takes two years but appeal for death penalty must be decided in seven days, I don’t think anybody in position of power is going to agree with such an outrageous injustice. I don’t see even Conservative Party agreeing with something like that (and if any party is likely to support the death penalty, it would be the Conservative party).

So the seven days idea is a non starter, I don’t see I happening. And it doesn’t matter how sure you are that somebody is guilty, doesn’t matter if he confesses. I am opposed to death penalty on the matter of principle. I don’t think cold blooded, premeditated killing by the government is ever justified.

And it takes seven days to prepare the guy's favorite meal?

 

[JLM]

Again, going back to what I said in previous post, if you are saying that it is OK if appeal for robbery takes two years but appeal for death penalty must be decided in seven days, I don’t think anybody in position of power is going to agree with such an outrageous injustice. I don’t see even Conservative Party agreeing with something like that (and if any party is likely to support the death penalty, it would be the Conservative party).

So the seven days idea is a non starter, I don’t see I happening. And it doesn’t matter how sure you are that somebody is guilty, doesn’t matter if he confesses. I am opposed to death penalty on the matter of principle. I don’t think cold blooded, premeditated killing by the government is ever justified.

And it takes seven days to prepare the guy's favorite meal?

Holy Hannah!!!!! I must be in an advanced state of Alzheimers, I would have sworn up and down I never said anything about two years to appeal robbery. I have bigger fish to fry for a couple of hours but when I ger back I'll be looking for that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Holy Hannah!!!!! I must be in an advanced state of Alzheimers, I would have sworn up and down I never said anything about two years to appeal robbery. I have bigger fish to fry for a couple of hours but when I ger back I'll be looking for that.

No you didn’t, I said that, you simply ducked the issue. But let me ask you straight out. If you think that appeal for death penalty should be over in 7 days, do you think that appeals to all other less severe crimes (robbery, rape, theft etc.) also should be dealt with in seven days?

If not, then what I said applies. If you think that all appeals should be dealt with in seven days, you are talking of billions of dollars worth of new expenditure on court buildings, judges, public prosecutor, defense attorneys etc.

So, which is it?

 

[countryboy]

No you didn’t, I said that, you simply ducked the issue. But let me ask you straight out. If you think that appeal for death penalty should be over in 7 days, do you think that appeals to all other less severe crimes (robbery, rape, theft etc.) also should be dealt with in seven days?

If not, then what I said applies. If you think that all appeals should be dealt with in seven days, you are talking of billions of dollars worth of new expenditure on court buildings, judges, public prosecutor, defense attorneys etc.

So, which is it?

I think - when you're talking about billions of dollars of new expenditure on court buildings, etc. - that you might have overlooked the reduction in crime due because of the deterent value of the death penalty for murder. Of course, that would involve a review and "upgrading" of how we establish and hand out penalties for all crimes. If done effectively, the resulting levels of crime should be reduced, thus allowing the current system to deal with offenders in a time-effective manner.

 

[AnnaG]

 

[countryboy]

And just where did I say that it is enforced federally, please point that out to me? I have never said that it is federally administered, I know that it is a matter for the states (although they also have death penalty federally), I don’t know where you got that idea.

This is called, putting up a straw man and knocking him down. You put up the straw man by claiming that I said that death penalty is administered federally (which I never did) and then proceed to knock him down. That is a standard debating technique.



I have trust in ‘solid scientific DNA thing’, but I don’t believe in human infallibility. There is also a saying in science, ‘garbage in, garbage out’. If there has been contamination of the DNA sample, or DNA samples of two people have been mixed up, it doesn’t matter how good you DNA detection techniques are, they won’t do your any good.

DNA analysis may be infallible (though some may question even that), human beings are not.

Well, yes, I do think that if somebody thinks that in USA death penalty is cheaper than life without parole, he is an ignoramus.

Your question above was: "And just where did I say that it is enforced federally, please point that out to me?"

Here's what you said in the original post: "USA has the death penalty and also one of the highest crime rates in the developed world."

Now take a deep breath and read those two sentences in bold. Done?

Now I have a question for you, since I responded to your request, which was, "Please point that out to me?" (Please see above sentences in bold)

My question is, was it your intention to deliberately distort the picture - by comparing a state issue (death penalty) to a national set of statistics (highest crime rates) - or was it just an oversight on your part?

May I suggest you give a shot at coming up with something meaningful. Like, perhaps showing - state by state - crime stats while indentifying which states have the death penalty and which ones don't.

Without that information, your "broad brush shot across the bow" really has no validity.

And by the way, which ignoramus "thinks that in USA death penalty is cheaper than life without parole?" Oh that's right, you qualified that by saying "if somebody thinks that..." which means you can claim you didn't single anyone out there. Which also means that statement really has no substance, meaning, or purpose...at least, to anyone reading it. I think it is nothing more than "distracting filler." Another amusing tactic. But still meaningless.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think - when you're talking about billions of dollars of new expenditure on court buildings, etc. - that you might have overlooked the reduction in crime due because of the deterent value of the death penalty for murder. Of course, that would involve a review and "upgrading" of how we establish and hand out penalties for all crimes. If done effectively, the resulting levels of crime should be reduced, thus allowing the current system to deal with offenders in a time-effective manner.

So what you are talking of here is a complete overhaul of the legal system, of laws, courts, the whole jurisprudence. Good luck with that.

And again, your assumption that there will be a big reduction in crime if we bring back the death penalty is shaky at best. They have death penalty in USA, how much has that deterred crime?

 

[AnnaG]

It sure deters repeat offenders. lol

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Countryboy, I think that is a very valid statement that I made, there is no distortion about it. National crime, murder statistics are made up by adding and averaging the state statistics. So national statistics accurately reflect what is happening in the nation as a whole.

Some states may have death penalty others won’t, but they all go to make up the national statistics. So national statistics accurately represent what is happening in the country. Also, with an individual state, there may be abnormal, exceptional circumstances as to why murder rate there may be abnormally high or low, such variations smooth out in the national statistics. So there is noting wrong, with the way I phrased that statement.

However, it you want to compare states with death penalty with states without death penalty, have it your way.


Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates | Death Penalty Information Center

States without death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than states with death penalty. This fact is widely known in USA (the statistics are there for all to see), but that doesn’t stop death penalty proponents, of course.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Incidentally courntyboy, the states with death penalty had a murder rate of 5, 83 in 2007, according to the link I provided. By comparison, in Canada (which has no death penalty), most jurisdictions have murder rate between 1 and 2 (I think that represents per 100,000).

So much for your deterrence of death penalty.

 

[Mowich]

It sure deters repeat offenders. lol

At the very least, it detered that offender. lol!