No it wouldn't be an opinion if you were stating the statistical data. Your opinion would be what you concluded caused that data to be as it is, the effects of the findings and any correlations. Using high violent crime numbers in places with capitol punnishment means saying it's not a deternent is a fact, speculating on what it's not a deterent would be an opinion.
~ The state is seeking the death penalty for the two individuals that were set up by the police to be arrested for dealing in drugs - The sting included buying a gun that would have allowed for life in prison (state of Florida law) as insurance against the petty criminals. ~ Considering all the circumstances and the reactions of the defendants to the states attempt against them the use of capital punishment by the state is a clear example of disingenuous use of force against individuals in all its respective principles as justice being used as a weapon than impartial renderings. The death penalty should not be permitted where the state itself has culpability and is an example where capital punishment proves itself to be a continuation of a crime than a resolution.
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/faq.php?s=&do=search&q=reputation&match=all&titlesonly=0 Asking for (or offering) reputation is not allowed publicly or privately.
Close, but no cigar. Data is just that - data. You could provide statistical data as that - data. But, any conclusion you draw from that data is an opinion. Thus the saying, "like elbows and assholes, everybody's got one..." This is not to say that some opinions are not better thought out and/or better supported by the facts than others. Only that inference from facts is always subjective. You seem to be saying that opinions would be about what caused the data in the first place, but that conclusions based on the data are somehow factual. Major error there!! As an example, menopausal hormone treatment is in the news. 10 years ago it was common knowledge that hormone treatment was a good thing. Today it is known to contribute to breast and uterine cancer risk. The "facts" have not changed. The "knowledge" inferred from those facts certainly has though. So, to bring this back on point - do the pharma king pins that knowingly covered up evidence that their products were causing cancer deaths and disfigurements deserve the death penalty? Should the corporate Board room somehow insulate one from responsibility for their actions?
Stox, again, the thread was not asking for factual data, but merely the opinions of members here. Your inability to comprehend a few small words....I won't say amazes me, because with you, ignorance is a given. And about your "stats." Where are they? You have yet to give anyone anything coming from a source. Don't you know that 83% of statistics are made up on the spot? How about this? You do realize I could skew poll results so easily it's not even funny. Now, your hippie eurotrash attitude can stay over there. In Texas we believe if 3 or more people saw you do what you did, there is no waiting in line for appeals, you go right to the front of the line. We have the death penalty and we use it. If you don't like it, tough shit. Good thing for us your bleeding heart bs doesn't float in our parts. I could care less whether or not it deters crime. It is a PUNISHMENT. The things the court sentence you to, those are called punishments. Not deterrents. If we wanted to deter people we'd give everyone guns. And sorry, if I happen to be around when you kill someone, I will make sure you get the death penalty. Unfortunately for you it won't be a needle, but a .40 ball round to the liver. Guaranteed to give you a 3 hour painful death. And guess what? I'm protected by law because I'm defending life, limb, eyesight, or property. Your family couldn't even sue me here.
The best post I've read in this whole thread. I'm a kick away in FL, but that right there was inspiring lol
Oooh, that is so Neandrathal. I had thought that Texas was only about 100 years behind the times. If it is about punishment, then let's just go back to public floggings. That, after all, is what the original purpose of jails/prisons were. Simply a place to hold people until the prescribed punishment could be carried out. Far cheaper than the current system - and totally ineffective. Controlling (or attempting to control) the behavior of others through fear of consequences is nothing more than bullying, and as any child knows such an approach only engenders resentment and sneakiness. If you want retributive justice, based on punishment, you can find it in many places - Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia come immediately to mind - oh, and Texas too! It makes little sense, however, to condemn barbarism in other countries on the one hand while encouraging it in our own country with the other, lest we begin calling you Ayatollah.
Willy, your posts always put a smile on my face. How exactly do you think our penal system works? What do you think the word penal means?(I'm not talking Penile as in Penile implant...) pe·nal Pronunciation: \ˈpē-nəl\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin poenalis, from poena punishment — more at pain Date: 15th century 1 : of, relating to, or involving punishment, penalties, or punitive institutions 2 : liable to punishment <a penal offense> 3 : used as a place of confinement and punishment <a penal colony> How bout the US? I hear they have a penal system there. Let me ask you a question. When you put Iran, Afghanistan, and Somalia into the same sentence in comparison with Texas, do you expect anyone to take you seriously? What I would recommend to you, Willy, is for you to move out of the US for a while and experience a few different forms of governance. There are many options out there, ranging from extremely strict and intrusive to extremely lax and permissive. All kinds of gun laws as well. From experience, you will find it difficult to maintain your possessions and safety in countries with lax laws because criminals don't fear punishment. I suspect your dislike for countries like Iran and Afganistan comes from a feeling that the punishments are unjust, and perhaps they are. There is always a balance to be struck between to strict and too lax, but let me assure you of one thing. Without fear of penalty, people will do whatever they can get away with. Our drunk driving statistics are enough evidence of that.
Again, fear of consequences (deterrent) is not what it's about. It's about punishment. There is a difference. And what about Germany? Highest penalty for a crime is 15 years prison. That's chump change to the possibly 50+ years someone takes away from another when they kill them. But hey, they can be rehabilitated. Whether you like it or not, the death penalty has it's place in society. Just like SOME rehabilitative programs have their place in society. When you commit a crime, there is a certain debt to society you must pay. I sell drugs, I have quite a few years to pay back. Average? About 10 for first offense (with possibility of parole). You commit premeditated murder, that debt is your life. Plain and simple. You don't like it, there are plenty of other countries out there that don't use the death penalty. But, until SCOTUS rules that the death penalty is considered cruel and unusual punishment, and therefor against the Constitution and unlawful, we will continue to use it. I'm sure Germany has a nice spot for you. Or wait...what about that American college student in Italy? 25 years for sexual assault and murder 1. Families have a right to justice as well. I have never hears of an instance where the family of a victim says they do not wish the death penalty, and the murder still get it. It's about retribution, debt, and punishment. It's not about deterrence. Where have I once said that? If you are going to quote me, by all means, quote me and respond. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when people start adding and attempting to read between lines for words that aren't there in order to refute what I'm saying. Refute EXACTLY what I say, don't make things up. You're starting to sound like Stox. And don't say I condemn barbarism in other countries. I could care less what other countries do. I don't think we have any right to police up the world except when it comes to our national defense. Guess what? You start threatening us, we'll drop a 2k pound bunker buster on your head. Shit happens. I think it's hypocritical for the US to condemn barbarism because there is much of it practiced by the US. I have no problem with persuasive interrogation techniques. However, I do have a problem with condemning others for using it. I don't have a problem with other people getting oppressed, because 9 times out of 10, it's by fault of their own. We're going down that path now, and unfortunately the vast majority of the population can't see it. But, before I die, the constitution will be gone. I only have a problem with the fact we invade other countries under the pretense of freeing them or whatever. I don't recall anyone asking us to free them. I do say national defense is certainly a just reason, especially after all diplomatic attempts have been tried. I've seen war, there is on reason to use that means lightly. It should be a last resort, and you won't hear anyone screaming this from the top of a mountain louder than someone who has actually been there. But, if a sovereign nation enacts laws, then let that sovereign nation enact those laws. In America, we believe that there are certain unalienable rights. You know, right to keep and bear arms to prevent an oppressive state, right to pick our religion (the government shall make no law establishing an official religion, nor preventing the free practice of another, should it not interfere with other persons rights), right to privacy (no unlawful search and seizure), right to defense counsel, right to a speedy trial judged by a jury of their peers. You see, unlike many cops, I don't think those rights get in the way. I don't think someone is guilty just because they invoke a certain right or tell me I need a warrant to go somewhere. Why? Because I want those rights accorded to me as well. People have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When you kill someone, you are taking away all 3 of those rights. It is merely fitting that you be killed as well. Oh, and stay out of Texas. We all love our guns, some of them love their religion, we all believe the death penalty is a great idea, we believe in the right of a person to be able to defend their life, limb, eyesight, or property, or that of a 3rd person. And we believe that the use of deadly force is legal to do that with. Hence the Castle law protecting us from criminal or civil liability. Again, if you think someone should be able to kill someone else and not die themselves, that's on you. I'm sure we both have clear consciences. And when you want to compare Texas to Iran or Afghanistan, at least try to do it a little better. Because the laws in Texas are approved by the federal government, so, maybe you should just leave. Since apparently the US is comparable to Afghanistan or Iran. I hear the UK is nice this time of year, and they even speak English. Real English. Not our American crap, and most definitely not my Texan crap. And Stox, where is this "factual" data you keep talking about?
The problem with the death penalty I have, is that I don't really think the people doing the crimes that would get them to that level of punishment, are in any way afraid of it. Or rather, the people who are considering committing crimes to that degree. Destructive mentality is always self-destructive, meaning they probably don't care if they die. If anything, prison is probably worse because they're forced to live out the remainder of their miserable lives. Personally, I don't put all my eggs in one basket when it comes to the justice system. Not that I don't think punishment has it's place, but I see the preventative side, the rehabilitative side, the side that looks at the cause of violent crime to be crucial. There's a lot of F'ed up people in the world, and the reason they're F'ed up is usually because of circumstance. Now I'm not saying that no one is responsible for themselves and that they're free to blame everything on circumstance, but I recognize the problem for what it is; these things wouldn't be happening if people were not in a disturbing state of mind. There's ways of going about treating the root problem, and ironically I believe individual responsibility is the best medicine - not for the criminals themselves or those in tough circumstances, but society as a whole. When people take responsibility for the environment around them and stop depending on government so much, I think a lot of problems could be solved.
That's why I said I believe the death penalty has it's place, and I believe those social rehabilitative programs have their place. But, there are some people that can't be rehabilitated. Sex offenders are one of them. And, honestly, the vast majority of people that kill someone else know what they did was wrong. That is all that matters, if you don't know what you did was wrong (and didn't at the time), that is where the "guilty, but by reason of insanity" defense is played. The justice system gives people outs. All. Day. Long. You even get a chance at plea deals. You cop to the murder everyone knows you did, and you won't get killed by the state. Simple as that. And people make these plea deals every day.
Possibly true, but the death penalty isn't just for the criminals, it is for the families of the victims. I haven't seen the stats, but I suspect the families of the victims get a better sense of Justice from those who are put to death for their crimes. The whole system is a mess. My understanding is that 80% of our inmates are not career criminals until they arrive at one of our Prisons. A little under 20% will never be rehabilitated under any circumstances. Unfortunately, it is the system we have. A more just system would do away with that 20% (Kill them? Send them to Somalia?) and focus on other means of dealing with the other 80%. We also sometimes criminalize ridiculous behavior. We are about to criminalize failure to purchase health insurance.
Retributive justice is, in my opinion, injustice disguised. Crimes are seldom against the State (or "King's Peace", which is where our system is rooted). Vengeance does not heal, even less so in a system that virtually ignores the victim(s) of crime. Restorative justice provides a more attractive option. Couldn't agree more! We could probably afford to lock up the 20% and forget about them. However, the incremental criminalization of everything under the sun is disturbing, to say the least.
Actually, I was speaking to your attitude about the righteousness of punishment. I find it difficult to beleive that all of Texas is so barbaric. And, I was serious about public floggings. If it is punishment you want, why spend billions of dollars on incarcerating people for years. Take them down to the town square and give them their 20 lashes and get it over with. I can think of any number of reasons for the death penalty. Punishment would be near the bottom of the list. You don't put down a livestock killing dog in order to "punish" it, do you?
We call it Justice in the US. Not that it has anything to do with the subject, but actually, yes. Its how wolves became so heavily demonized and hunted. Animals are put down all the time for simply attacking a human. In my opinion, that punishment is over used, and some times small incidents get overblown, but that is how our government keeps society safe from "bad dogs". Again, not a fair comparison.
~ The informant is dead because the state used pre-trial coercion (informant was arrested for drug possession) to have the informant help them against two petty criminals and instead was the cause for her death. ~ The state is using the laws for death sentences as a proxy for their own agenda and only illustrates a rational being more important for them than a human life.
Lol coercion? There is way more to someone becoming an informant than that. At least try to act like you know what you are talking about. But, I know, it's all just a huge conspiracy huh? Willy, you don't think Texas is really like that? Come down here and see for yourself. We're a very polite people until you start messing about with women, children, or murder. Those 3 things will get you dead faster than cattle rustling (which is still a capital penalty in Texas lol)
You missed my point entirely. You put down a livestock killing dog to eliminate a problem, not to inflict punishment. Wasn't it Lenin that said, "Death solves all problems. No man, no problem." The death penalty hardly counts as "punishment" in my mind. BTW, what you call "justice" may not be what the rest of us in the US call justice. If you want a justice system based on punishment, then bring back the public floggings. It is a much less expensive way to inflict punishment and will in all likelihood have a more favorable impact on recidivism than long prison terms. If you want justice, then you are going to have to discard the idea that crimes are against the State and accept that crimes are against individuals. Change that one little philosophical piece and everything begins to change. Victims suddenly count and have meaningful rights to meaningful forms of restoration. As an example here, if a felon is on supervision and has court orders to pay restitution to his victims, guess what takes priority - supervision fees or restitution payments? Why, it is supervision fees, which reflects the idea that crimes are committed agains the State (the "Kings Peace" in common law). Crime victims are nothing but an afterthought. I call it the Criminal Injustice System. I happen to work in it.
Family on my father's side is from Texas (Little town of Frost, not too far south of Dallas). Love the food and the drawl. Pretty much stops there.