Yea or Nay

Right said:
If punishment isn't a deterrent for crime, then why do we have any kind punishment? Where's your proof that punishment isn't a deterrent?

The problem with you libtards is that you think that people are fundamentally good, and are just going to do the right thing because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy. We conservatives know better.
Click to expand...
Dumber76 can't dispute this
 
Right said:
Dumber76 can't dispute this
Click to expand...

Your claim, douchebag. Prove it or shut the fuck up.

Your skills at simple logic are as lacking as your comprehension skills. From an article last November:

"Today, the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. Violent crime has fallen by 51 percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970. And this holds true for unreported crimes as well. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1993 the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 people."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...gun-crime-are-both-dropping-charles-c-w-cooke

So, your simpleton's claim that it is due to the reinstatement of the death penalty is nothing but a moron's gullible bullshit.
 
Right said:
If punishment isn't a deterrent for crime, then why do we have any kind of punishment?
Click to expand...

Punishment isn't the question at hand nor your response. The question is whether the death penalty is warranted and, with your comment, that it is a deterrent to violent crime.

You have presented no proof, other than a simplistic notion, that the death penalty is a deterrent. Major failure on your part. I've come to rely on your failures.

A question for you and your fellow lyching buddies. What is the acceptable error rate in capital cases? 10%? 5%?1%%
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Since you obviously weren't able to see what was first said, prior to your complaining, I'll repost it and just to help you, I've underlined the part that should help you.

And that is exactly what's wrong with part of our Court system.
In situations where there is NO DOUBT of the guilt, the system should let nature take it's course.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...
Uh no. Our system is predicated on an assumption of innocence till proven guilty in a court of law.
 
It would be illegal under the constitution to retroactively apply the sentence of hanging specifically to this man. Regardless, hanging is not necessarily more inhumane than lethal injection if performed correctly (it kills instantly if using the long drop method, whereas lethal injection can often be more inhumane because it just freezes a convict in place while they suffer pain from the other drugs).
 
Right said:
The only reason why it is "widely questioned" is that so many men have been feminized, like you.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with feminization? The history of civilization is the progressive feminization of humanity. Masculinization is a return to barbarity and ignorance.

Right said:
Statistics prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. The murder rate in NYS fell like a brick after it was reinstituted.
Click to expand...

New York state never reinstated the death penalty. Statistics, in fact, prove that there is no correlation at all between the death penalty and crime rates.

Right said:
Regards to this sick individual, I'm not for long drawn out torture to end his miserable life. A single .22LR to the temple and it's all over. He'll spend the rest of eternity having Satan do to him what he did to that baby.
Click to expand...

If the death penalty is to exist, it should be done quickly and painlessly. Torturing someone to death is pointless masturbation.
 
Right said:
If punishment isn't a deterrent for crime, then why do we have any kind punishment? Where's your proof that punishment isn't a deterrent?

The problem with you libtards is that you think that people are fundamentally good, and are just going to do the right thing because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy. We conservatives know better.
Click to expand...

I am actually incredibly cynical about the nature of man, which you would know if you read any of my posts.
 
Life imprisonment is already a significant enough punishment that I think it deters murder about as much as is possible. The death penalty does not significantly deter beyond this.
 
domer76 said:
Punishment isn't the question at hand nor your response. The question is whether the death penalty is warranted and, with your comment, that it is a deterrent to violent crime.

You have presented no proof, other than a simplistic notion, that the death penalty is a deterrent. Major failure on your part. I've come to rely on your failures.

A question for you and your fellow lyching buddies. What is the acceptable error rate in capital cases? 10%? 5%?1%%
Click to expand...

Then tell me the name of one criminal who was executed, who then committed at least one more crime. :D
 
All I can figure from USFREEDUMB is that she wants to torture people who commit particularly heinous crimes where everyone agrees that they probably did it..
No explanation about how to write that desire into the penal codes.
Yeah or Neigh?
LOL
 
Right said:
The only reason why it is "widely questioned" is that so many men have been feminized, like you.

Statistics prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. The murder rate in NYS fell like a brick after it was reinstituted.

Regards to this sick individual, I'm not for long drawn out torture to end his miserable life. A single .22LR to the temple and it's all over. He'll spend the rest of eternity having Satan do to him what he did to that baby.
Click to expand...
You're just saying that my chicken hawk friend cause you're Irish. There have been no studies that had ever demonstrated conclusively that the death penalty acts as a deterrent beyond long term imprisonment.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I know you have problems with anything that goes against your beliefs; but execution does reduce crime, because the executed criminal will never victimize anyone else again.
And public viewing of an execution may just make someone who was thinking of committing a violent crime, rethink what they were planning.
Click to expand...
No...not really. In fact the opposite. A public execution may titillate some unhinged mother fucker (like Grind) and cause them to obsess over killing or some other violent act.

Most murders and violent acts are committed as acts of passion, by people under the influence and by those (like Grid) who are mentally deranged. They are not the types to think about the long term consequences of their action.

Public executions make an entertainment circus out of a very solemn and serious situation. The State taking a human life as proscribed by the rule of law. Creating a three ring circus out of an execution serves significantly to undermine the rule of law by detracting from the seriousness of such an event by reducing it to the level of a Friday night football game. This does not serve the rule of law or the cause of humanity.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then tell me the name of one criminal who was executed, who then committed at least one more crime. :D
Click to expand...

Tell me the names of all the people sentenced to death that were later exonerated.

Read Grisham's book, "An Innocent Man", asswipe, before you continue to post out of ignorance.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're just saying that my chicken hawk friend cause you're Irish. There have been no studies that had ever demonstrated conclusively that the death penalty acts as a deterrent beyond long term imprisonment.
Click to expand...

Then you should be able to name at least one criminal, who was "deterred" by being put to death, who then went on and committed another crime
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No...not really. In fact the opposite. A public execution may titillate some unhinged mother fucker (like Grind) and cause them to obsess over killing or some other violent act.

Most murders and violent acts are committed as acts of passion, by people under the influence and by those (like Grid) who are mentally deranged. They are not the types to think about the long term consequences of their action.

Public executions make an entertainment circus out of a very solemn and serious situation. The State taking a human life as proscribed by the rule of law. Creating a three ring circus out of an execution serves significantly to undermine the rule of law by detracting from the seriousness of such an event by reducing it to the level of a Friday night football game. This does not serve the rule of law or the cause of humanity.
Click to expand...

Then we shouldn't have public trials; because it might just "titillate: some unhinged mother fucker (like Grind) and cause them to obsess over committing a violent act, so they can have their own PUBLIC TRIAL and all the notoriety.

If they're publically executing 3 criminals, then I'm all for the Three Ring Circus.
Since when did thinking about the long term consequences ever have anything to do with being guilty.
How does that old saying go??
OH-YEAH:
If you can't do the time (consequence) - then don't do the crime. :dunno:
 
domer76 said:
Tell me the names of all the people sentenced to death that were later exonerated.

Read Grisham's book, "An Innocent Man", asswipe, before you continue to post out of ignorance.
Click to expand...

When you decide to include all of my previous criteria, then we can discuss your FEELINGS; but until then, you might as well continue to....:fap:...yourself.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top