PrinceLUDA's Bull****

[PrinceLUDA21]

Ha I totaly ripped off Penn and Teller. Anyway if you seen their show on Showtime then you may know where this goes if not then this will be fun for all.

The point for this is just to here veiws on a subject. Each week I'll come back with a new subject and new opinions. I would like to here both sides even if you do not agree there are two sides. I myself can not speak on how I feel being this is my therad and Penn does ot do it on his show. My only respons is to ask questions. I will try my best to suply everyone with facts on both sides a a argument. I feel as though everyone on this fourm has diferent veiws on everything. So a few rules.
1. Do not Out me in anyway or get angry with anything I say. I will try to only respone in a question.
2. Each week will be a new subject. Try not to bring up a old subject. It may through off the flow of a confersation.
3. Act with respect, we are all here to speak freely. These are just opions. DO NOT OFFEND.
4. Try to stay on Topic PLEASE.

So on to busniess. For my first subject We will talk on the DEATH PENALTY. Are you for or against it. If so then ask your self this, IS IT MORELY RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMANBEING? If so then IS IT RIGHT TO KILL SOMEONE WHO POSES NO THREAT TO YOU? True we should make people pay for their crimes but is KILLING a human moraly right?

If anyone can answer that or has a answer for it then please let me know.

 

[cuinneas]

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind... heard that somewheres. Other than that I have no opinion on the matter.

 

[silent_storm]

To tell the truth I'm not really sure on this matter.

1) I'm for the death penalty. But it depends on the case of course.

2) I don't think it's right to kill another human, but again it depends on the situation.

3) It's not right to kill someone who poses no threat to you.

4) But on the death penalty thing, I think it should be enforced when necessary. Like with those mass murderers, serial killers, etc., who probably would continue to kill people, and who don't benefit society at all.

 

[kurruption]

I think Samuel Jackson said it best in "A Time To Kill" when he said, "yeah they deserved to die, and I hope they burn in hell" keyword being deserve

Next topic should be how Penn, Teller and Kurruption are totally going to sue your ass for ripping off Bullsh*t and Kurruptions rants

 

[PrinceLUDA21]

Next topic should be how Penn, Teller and Kurruption are totally going to sue your ass for ripping off Bullsh*t and Kurruptions rants

How did I rip you off your ranting I'm questioning I think there is a difference somewhere.


But like I said earlier. DOES ANYONE THINK IT IS MORALY RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER. Can anyone answer that question at all. Silent said it depends, and he also said no. I don't care what the reason is for killing someone. There are only the reasons to kill. I wanna know do you think it is Moraly right to kill someone period.

 

[scoops]

There is never a situation in which it is morally right to kill another human being. Morality implies that there is a perfect good. If we say that harm to humans is wrong, then in no way can harm to a human (any human) be right. Since our world is not perfect, however, we are sometimes required to harm others in our own self-defense.

I like the old testament way around this sticky issue. It was permisable for vengeance to be taken on a murderer, but the society also provided "cities" (likely tent-towns that were miserable to live in) where people could flee to after they'd committed a crime worthy of vengeance, and the revenger was not allowed, by holy law, to enter those cities to kill the murderer.

So in effect, they punished murder by exile.

 

[Jason mv]

I would say that the only way that its morally right to kill someone is if the person u killed was going to kill someone or many others *cough* terrorist *cough*. If you kill in defence for your life or other rights I think its the right thing to do.

 

[kwilson]

I am opposed to the death penalty. Juries are composed of flawed human beings and there have been WAY too many put to death who are later shown to be innocent.

As for the rest - I don't really care. I watch too many action movies to form an opinion based on reality.

 

[scoops]

I would say that the only way that its morally right to kill someone is if the person u killed was going to kill someone or many others *cough* terrorist *cough*. If you kill in defence for your life or other rights I think its the right thing to do.

Hmm. I would say it's still not the right thing to do, morally. There are some situations where there is no morally pure option, that is one of the features of living in a post-lapsarian world.

 

[kurruption]

How did I rip you off your ranting I'm questioning I think there is a difference somewhere.

Kurruption was the only member with his name on a thread, Stan owns this place and even he didn't have one.

Kwilsons suing as well, similiarities between this thread and Question of the Day are too obvious. Biggest difference? weekly and daily, next question please

 

[Darth_Jonas]

I'll weigh in on this one. I believe it's wrong to murder, but ok to kill in certain circumstances. There are some penalties worthy of death. Rape, child molestation, and murder being the big three. I think our justice system is flawed by going too easy on some of the ones that simply plead guilty or cut a plea bargain. I also know that strong examples deter certain behaviors. Forget this lethal injection junk, hang a few mass murders and rapists. It's cheaper and can really drive home the point to some of those who may be considering the date rape drugs or possibly killing mommy and daddy because they didn't get a PS3 for Christmas.

Then again, there's always the policy of forgiveness. Some people can go through some prison time and come out changed men. They realize that what they did was wrong and want a fresh start. My dad regularly hires guys coming out of the prison ministry. These guys are on parole and can't get a job, so many turn back to whatever way they can to make a buck. He provides a way for them to get back into the work force.

Which brings us to Basil's point of a perfect right and wrong. As a Christian, I believe there is an absolute right and wrong. Interpreting that to each circumstance is difficult, so I don't fault anyone for having doubts as to when it is right to apply the death penalty. But consider what would happen if we used the "what's right for me may not be right for you" and applied it to our justice system, then what's right for a murderer might be right for him. For terrorists, it is right and just for them to kill infidels. What's right for them isn't right for us. And if you say, well if they do it here, then it's wrong, then it goes that if they do it in their homeland then it's ok. Then when a Red Cross or other humanitarian worker or soldier gets killed it has to be right and we can't complain.

 

[PrinceLUDA21]

Ok so we know there is a right and wrong. Vengence is a basic human nature. Eye for an Eye but it does not make us better humans it makes us just as shallow or even more by doing so. So moraly killing someone is wrong we know this so why does the goverment do it?

Joans brought up a few points Deterence is one of them. Thats BullS*** you can not deter muders at all. Also it does not bring crime rate down. Three reason why muders are commited, Passion, Profit and Compulsion. How can you deter any of those? Passion is in the heat of the moment and you can't control how you feel. Profit comes from ppl like the Mob, gangbangers and Drug Dealers. They don't care about the po-po. They are not scared of what will happen to them. Compulsion murders or crimes may be the worst. THIS CAN NOT BE DETERED. If it can the Son of Sam, Charlie Manson, Jeff Domer ( not correct spelling). They knew what would happen were not scared and did not cared they did what they did becaused they wnated to and liked it. So the the Death Penalty is a sham in a way. Here in PA we do not use the DP Life in prison. In TX they have the higest murder rate out there. Texas honors the DP and yet you'd think ppl would stop killing each other. So what is the purpos of the Death Penalty?

If you comit one of the three big crimes then just keep them loked up longer give them life. Is killing them really gonna help. Telling another HUMAN BEING THAT THEY MUST BE KILLED because they did something wrong. What about the ppl who are siting on Death Row and are innocent. If we are supporting the Death Penalty in the US and kill someone but then to find out they were inocent then WE HAVE COMMITED MURDER IN THE SAME, right? So what is to happen if that went through. Will the US be wrong would anyone feel guilty for that?

 

[Darth_Jonas]

Um, Texas doesn't have the highest murder rate. It's a constant toss-up between LA and NY. Look at it per capita, not by overall population. That's kinda like saying there's more traffic problems in NY than in Trapp, Kentucky (go to the middle of nowhere and turn left).

And even though some murderers wouldn't be deterred by a firing squad standing ready outside, take the kids that think it's ok to join gangs. Go back a little ways and you'll find that only "bad guys" got involved in gangs which usually meant organized crime. Lower the penalties for crimes committed, and suddenly the cost/benefit ratio for being a bad guy doesn't look so bad.

I lock my doors everytime I leave my car. What good does it do? It keeps the honest crooks out. These are the ones who would steal a car if the keys were in the ignition and the doors unlocked, but not if they had to break in and hotwire the car.

 

[asylum_boy]

Thumbs up for the death penalty......and i am with Jonas that there is a defined right and wrong, no in between on that one:teacher:
I also agree with Ron White on the death penalty as well, if you haven't, watch his standup comedy routine and you'll agree............Big Hint: he's from Texas as well

 

[scribe999]

Um, Texas doesn't have the highest murder rate. It's a constant toss-up between LA and NY.

New York City is nothing like it used to be, Darth. Frankly, the cities with the highest murder rates in the U.S. tend to be Baltimore, Detroit and D.C. (per capita) over the last two decades. In fact, the latest figures I could find online (from 2002) places New York City about 25th overall among 32 large cities for homicide committed per capita. Detroit was 2nd and LA and Dallas are ranked 9th and 10th respectively. Dallas does actually have high murder rates from what I could gather from a friend of mine from there. Plus, it is also ranked in the top 25 most "Dangerous" cities in a study by InfoPlease for 2004.

Sorry, but I had to refute the stereotyping of NY after living in the city for 5 years. It still carries the reputation for its gritty, horror show days during the 1970's and 80's, but today it really is amazingly safe for a city of over 8 million people. I'd feel safer walking around the Bronx at night then certain parts of Baltimore I've seen.

DC IS AGAIN 'MURDER CAPITAL', NEW STUDY SHOWS
- District had Highest Big-City Murder Rate in 2002
- DC Murder Rate Soared as Other Cities Saw Decline

The study, conducted by SafeStreetsDC.com (www.SafeStreetsDC.com), a public safety watchdog group, compared the annual number of murders per 100,000 residents in American cities with populations greater than 500,000. This was the same standard used to determine DC's previous rank as murder capital. In compiling the data, the group relied on homicide statistics from the FBI and police department homicide units from around the country.

According to the numbers, DC outranked all major cities, and is again the nation's "murder capital."

Immediately following DC on the list were Detroit (the winner in 2001), Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia (in that order).

Other notable rankings included: Los Angeles (9), Dallas (10), Boston (18), San Francisco (24), and New York (25). Last on the list was Honolulu, ranked 32d with only 18 murders, in spite of its population of nearly 900,000.

 

[scribe999]

One thing...I do accept that the Death Penalty is a possible necessity, but I also believe in maintaining that it be difficult to inflict upon someone. After all, it is the ultimate and final punishment man can bestow, and we ought to get it right.

One additional thing...death penalty states actually do consistently have higher homicide rates than states that have none or weaker statutes regarding the death penalty. I'm not judging what that means, but see for yourself:

Homicides Per 100,000 people -- DATA SOURCE: FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for 2004 (Published October, 2005) :

Louisiana 12.7
Maryland 9.4
New Mexico 8.9
Mississippi 7.8
Nevada 7.4
Arizona 7.2
Georgia 6.9
South Carolina 6.9
California 6.7
Arkansas 6.4
Michigan 6.4
Missouri 6.2
North Carolina 6.2
Illinois 6.1
Texas 6.1
Tennessee 5.9
Kentucky 5.7
Alabama 5.6
Alaska 5.6
Florida 5.4
Oklahoma 5.3
Pennsylvania 5.2
Virginia 5.2
Indiana 5.1
New York 4.6
New Jersey 4.5
Ohio 4.5
Kansas 4.5
Colorado 4.4
West Virginia 3.7
Montana 3.2
Washington 3.1
Wisconsin 2.8
Connecticut 2.6
Hawaii 2.6
Massachusetts 2.6
Vermont 2.6
Oregon 2.5
Rhode Island 2.4
Nebraska 2.3
South Dakota 2.3
Idaho 2.2
Minnesota 2.2
Wyoming 2.2
Delaware 2.0
Utah 1.9
Iowa 1.6
Maine 1.4
New Hampshire 1.4
North Dakota 1.4

 

[PrinceLUDA21]

Thanks Scribe for the info.

So how does the death penalty deter crimes? And still we are talking about Killing anthoer Human. No if and or but's about it. They are wrong for there crimes, why mus we become like them? How do we get to pick who lives or dies? It does not matter how it's done it's the fact that we do it.

Leathl injection, Firing Squad, Gas, Electrocution, Hanging does it matter how it's done. Since 1976 there have been about 1,000 executions.

152 - Electrocution
11 - By Gas
2 - Firing Squad
3 - Hung
817 - Injection
15 - Well we really don't need to know how.

Now the goal for injection is to make it painless for the person. But from this medical journal the LANCET, some inmates were felt the pain. ( link for the lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605663775/abstract ). Now I know no one cares but if this is to be painless and bring no harm then what are we doing? ( another article to read ( http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606682767/fulltext ). If this is proff that Injection is wrong then why has there been 817 done in the US. Also injection is a Nazi practice incase you did no know. ( inventor Dr. Karl Brandt ).

But again I ask what will happen once we we send someone to death and it turns out their innocent. It has happen before. Since 1973, 121 have either been found not guilty or the chrges were dropped. Due to new eveidence. So where does the blame fall at. Innocent MEN WERE PLACED ON DEATH ROW. Now you tell me whats Bull****?

 

[scribe999]

I think that the argument for the death penalty as a deterrence is baseless. I still believe that as a punishment it may be justified. That's why we have an independent judiciary, appeals processes and executive pardons.

However, the best deterrence for crime has been two things that go hand-in-hand. 1) Educational opportunities and 2) the economic opportunities that arise from a well-educated populace.

Throughout the 1990's into the new millenium, a burgeoning economy allowed for an unprecedented drop in violent crimes across the country. As educational opportunities begin to weaken and overall wages continues to stagnate, a slight bump in violent crime has been noted.

 

[Darth_Jonas]

Woo! Charlotte made the top 20! I mean, um.... That's bad. Anyways, Scribe's right about education and economy playing into things (good stats, btw. I forgot that DC had taken over). Another factor is concentrated population. The more people are packed together, the more crime happens. Where I live now (in Kentucky), it's a huge deal when someone is shot, let alone murdered. It makes the papers when a high school student wrecked her car on the first day she had her license, and no one was even hurt! Now go a few hours away to Cincinnati and crime goes up significantly.

 

[scribe999]

I have to add that I support a moratorium on the death penalty because serious changes need to be made to the system. My opinion was formed particularly when the former Attorney General, John Ashcroft, pressured states like New York and New Jersey to start applying the death penalty more often...all in the name of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution!

Maybe one agrees with the ultimate sentence, maybe one doesn't, but it has become disturbingly clear that some states have become exceedingly abusive in their application of the sentence. In Texas alone, between 1982 and 2000, they executed 232 inmates. That's an average of almost 13 executions a year, nearly 1 a month! Numerous stories of Texas prosecutors pressuring suspects with threats of capital punishment in order to work out quick pleas have been documented, and illegal immigrants, terrified of the police, often say exactly what the police want them to say. A perfect example comes from the Houston Chronicle:

THE CANTU CASE: DEATH AND DOUBT
Did Texas execute an innocent man?
Eyewitness says he felt influenced by police to ID the teen as the killer
By LISE OLSEN
Copyright 2005, Houston Chronicle

excerpt: "Cantu's long-silent co-defendant, David Garza, just 15 when the two boys allegedly committed a murder-robbery together, has signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be falsely accused, though Cantu wasn't with him the night of the killing.

And the lone eyewitness, the man who survived the shooting, has recanted. He told the Chronicle he's sure that the person who shot him was not Cantu, but he felt pressured by police to identify the boy as the killer. Juan Moreno, an illegal immigrant at the time of the shooting, said his damning in-court identification was based on his fear of authorities and police interest in Cantu."

No physical evidence
The Chronicle found other problems with Cantu's case as well. Police reports have unexplained omissions and irregularities. Witnesses who could have provided an alibi for Cantu that night were never interviewed. And no physical evidence — not even a fingerprint or a bullet — tied Cantu to the crime.

Worse, some think Cantu's arrest was instigated by police officers because Cantu shot and wounded an off-duty officer during an unrelated bar fight. That case against Cantu was dropped in part because officers overreacted and apparently tainted the evidence, according to records and interviews.

for the rest of the story: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/chronicle/3472872