The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Ktoyou]

You do what you can do, though it mostly just made JR look for a more fertile field for revisiting past declaration...looks like gen is in the mood for that too. He's been hitting the Democrat/racist nonsense for a bit and avoiding the decades more recent truth.

God knows why.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party has owed its success to the South that switched to it when Johnson turned on them, though the process wasn't fully realized until Reagan.

The Republican part has always been like a business class party, which needs outside support since only about 10-25% ride business class. Democrats are everyone else, yet for some time it has become too immersed in identity politics, which has alienated some of its blue colour base, if I may still use that word?

This is one stunt Trump pulled well, getting past union folks to believe he can bring back the old manual labour jobs, which are disappearing in China, and now going to South Indonesia and other third world countries.

 

[The Barbarian]

Capital punishment stops a person from committing more crimes.

That would imply that states with capital punishment would have fewer homicides. (Barbarian checks)

Doesn't seem to work, so well, does it?

 

[Stripe]

Capital punishment stops a person from committing more crimes.

Yep. There is absolutely no recidivism among people who have been executed.

:thumb:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

Yep. There is absolutely no recidivism among people who have been executed.

"When the state regularly kills people, the citizens of the state are more likely to kill people. We think it might get better if we killed people more often."

 

[Stripe]

"When the state regularly kills people, the citizens of the state are more likely to kill people. We think it might get better if we killed people more often."

Oh. You must think your graph validates this quote, much like you thought your graph was a repudiation of GO's post. Neither would be accurate, of course.

If you were talking about abortion, then your quote would be helpful, but your graph hides everything about the death penalty in the US that makes it useless.

For example, here is a map of all the states with a valid DP statute in red:

-source

However, in 2017 there were only 23 executions among nine states, and only one of those states was in the top three for murder rate — Washington, Louisiana and Missouri (one 2017 execution) in 2015.

There's no way your quote is representative of your graph and no way your graph is responsive to the fact that dead men commit no crimes.

Stupid, stupid Blablaman. You must have thought nobody would check your lies.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

Cherry-picking one year for the number of executions and another for rates is a pretty transparent tactic.

That's why you'll won't get a valid result doing it. Why did the guys who fooled you pick those two different data points? I bet you realize now.

Stupid, stupid, Stipe.

The other question is, "given the number of homicides in the United States, how could such a small number of executions make any impact in the murder rate at all? They merely serve as a public display of how little those states regard human life, and the data indicate that such a display does encourage violence.

Perhaps the most disturbing element of capital punishment is the prospect of executing individuals who are innocent of the crime they have been convicted of. Estimates of the number of innocent people on death row are notoriously difficult to pin down. While the Supreme Court has stopped short of declaring claims of actual innocence constitutional, since 1973, one hundred and thirty-nine inmates have been exonerated from a death sentence because of evidence of their innocence. Proponents of death penalty abolition also name several inmates who have been executed even with compelling evidence of their innocence.

There's no way your quote is representative of your graph and no way your graph is responsive to the fact that dead men commit no crimes.

Turns out that it is. Do you see now, how easily you were tricked by cherry-picked data, and why decades-long data is more valid than picking out two data points and pretending that they have any meaning at all?

Did you really fall for that? Seriously?

And notice that the number of people falsely condemned, who played the appeals system long enough to find evidence exonerating them, shows over a hundred innocent people falsely condemned and likely means a much larger number of wrongly condemned people who weren't so lucky.

How may innocent people would you be willing to kill, Stipe, in order to kill more guilty people?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like to hear your answer.

 

[Stripe]

Cherry-picking one year for the number of executions and another for rates is a pretty transparent tactic.

Nope. I went to a couple of sources — and listed them — and took their top lines to show how easy it is to dig a little deeper and expose the nonsensical nature of your sourceless graph.

Did you not notice? There are 31 states with DP statues on their books. Does your graph use all of those on the "executions" side of its data? Or does it only include those that have actually executed prisoners? Does it weigh the number of executions against population? All of these things would need to be clarified before you could even come close to justifying the stupid claim that "When the state regularly kills people, the citizens of the state are more likely to kill people. We think it might get better if we killed people more often."

Geez, even critical examination of the nonsense you spew is difficult, given how opaque and ambiguous it is. If you were talking about abortion, you'd be right on the money. Instead, you seem to be of the conviction that executing murderers and rapists is wrong.

That's why you'll won't get a valid result doing it.

Sorry, debunking your nonsense was as easy as :mock: Blablaman. Doing a modicum of research only gives you more things to waffle about.

Why did the guys who fooled you pick those two different data points? I bet you realize now.

What in the blue blazes are you warbling about now?

The other question is, "given the number of homicides in the United States, how could such a small number of executions make any impact in the murder rate at all? They merely serve as a public display of how little those states regard human life, and the data indicate that such a display does encourage violence."

So you hate justice. Got it.

Perhaps the most disturbing element of capital punishment is the prospect of executing individuals who are innocent of the crime they have been convicted of. Estimates of the number of innocent people on death row are notoriously difficult to pin down. While the Supreme Court has stopped short of declaring claims of actual innocence constitutional, since 1973, one hundred and thirty-nine inmates have been exonerated from a death sentence because of evidence of their innocence. Proponents of death penalty abolition also name several inmates who have been executed even with compelling evidence of their innocence.

You'll bring up a raft of things to distract attention away from your stupid response to GO's post. Executed men do not murder people. Never. Not one case.

Also, you ignore all those not executed who have murdered again. Guaranteed to be in the tens of thousands.

Turns out that it is.

Nope. Did you even read what GO wrote?

How may innocent people would you be willing to kill, St[r]ipe, in order to kill more guilty people? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like to hear your answer.

It's a stupidly worded question.

Ask in a sensible manner and people will be more likely to respond as if you have genuine interest.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nope. I went to a couple of sources — and listed them — and took their top lines to show how easy it is to dig a little deeper and expose the nonsensical nature of your sourceless graph.

You found a site where someone cherry picked two different years for two different things and convinced you that those two data points meant more than all the other data. You're very gullible, Stipe.

Did you not notice? There are 31 states with DP statues on their books. Does your graph use all of those on the "executions" side of its data? Or does it only include those that have actually executed prisoners? Does it weigh the number of executions against population? All of these things would need to be clarified before you could even come close to justifying the stupid claim that "When the state regularly kills people, the citizens of the state are more likely to kill people.

Those are murder rates, Stipe. Do you understand what a rate is? The point, which should surprise no one is that if the state demonstrates a disregard for human life, then it tends to affect public of that state.

Barbarian observes:
The other question is, "given the number of homicides in the United States, how could such a small number of executions make any impact in the murder rate at all? They merely serve as a public display of how little those states regard human life, and the data indicate that such a display does encourage violence."

So you hate justice. Got it.

Your difficulty Stipe, is that you are so eager to kill in vengeance, you've lost any care about the victims. You don't see that being murdered is an injustice. Neither do you see that the state killing an innocent person is injustice. You merely thirst for the state to kill.

Executed men do not murder people. Never. Not one case.

But the state often condemns the innocent to death. Which doesn't bother you. What bothers you is that perhaps a killer might escape death. Leave vengeance to God as He tells you to do.

Also, you ignore all those not executed who have murdered again. Guaranteed to be in the tens of thousands.

Sounds like testable claim. How many people, convicted of a homicide, have killed again? Show us your numbers, Stipe.

Recividism rates for murderers is said to be among the lowest for all types of felony. But I've never actually investigated. Show us your data.

Turns out that it is. Do you see now, how easily you were tricked by cherry-picked data, and why decades-long data is more valid than picking out two data points and pretending that they have any meaning at all?

Did you really fall for that? Seriously?

Nope.

The two factors you cited were from two different years. Apples and oranges.

How may innocent people would you be willing to kill, Stipe, in order to kill more guilty people? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like to hear your answer.

It's a stupidly worded question.

It's worded to make you confront your zeal for killing, and to make you realize that your thirst for vengeance causes you to discount the fact that you are advocating a policy that kills innocent people.

You won't answer, for precisely that reason. We all get that.

 

[Stripe]

You found a site where someone cherry picked two different years for two different things and convinced you that those two data points meant more than all the other data. You're very gullible, St[r]ipe.

:darwinsm:

:mock: Blablaman.

Meanwhile, your response to GO was useless avoidance.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That would imply that states with capital punishment would have fewer homicides. (Barbarian checks)

Doesn't seem to work, so well, does it?

Your liberal mindset' doesn't seem to work, so well, does it?

 

[JudgeRightly]

You found a site where someone cherry picked two different years for two different things and convinced you that those two data points meant more than all the other data. You're very gullible, Stipe.

Those are murder rates, Stipe. Do you understand what a rate is? The point, which should surprise no one is that if the state demonstrates a disregard for human life, then it tends to affect public of that state.

Barbarian observes:
The other question is, "given the number of homicides in the United States, how could such a small number of executions make any impact in the murder rate at all? They merely serve as a public display of how little those states regard human life, and the data indicate that such a display does encourage violence."

Your difficulty Stipe, is that you are so eager to kill in vengeance, you've lost any care about the victims. You don't see that being murdered is an injustice. Neither do you see that the state killing an innocent person is injustice. You merely thirst for the state to kill.

This coming from someone who would rather have "low" recidivism rates than 0% recidivism rate.

It's JUST AS WRONG to put an innocent to death as it is to let a guilty person go free.

Executed men do not murder people. Never. Not one case.

But the state often condemns the innocent to death. Which doesn't bother you.

Of course it bothers us. That's why we want the death penalty, so that the number of total people going through the system drops, so that there is less chance of an innocent person being condemned for something he didn't do.

It's JUST AS WRONG to put an innocent to death as it is to let a guilty person go free.

What bothers you is that perhaps a killer might escape death. Leave vengeance to God as He tells you to do.

See, the problem with that claim, that "the state often condemns the innocent to death" is a symptom of a high crime rate, jury trials (justice by committee), no responsibility on the part of the judges, etc.

God guarantees that if you have a death penalty (and a properly implemented one, at that) for capital crimes, the people will respect the law and government, and not act presumptuously.

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:11&version=NKJV

Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel.And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously. - Deuteronomy 17:12-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:12-13&version=NKJV

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. - Romans 13:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans13:1-7&version=NKJV

Sounds like testable claim. How many people, convicted of a homicide, have killed again? Show us your numbers, Stipe.

Recividism rates for murderers is said to be among the lowest for all types of felony. But I've never actually investigated. Show us your data.

Funnily enough, imposing the death penalty for murderers has a 0% recidivism rate. Not one of them will ever murder again if they are put to death for their crimes.

I'll take the 0% recidivism rate over your "low" recidivism rate.

Turns out that it is. Do you see now, how easily you were tricked by cherry-picked data, and why decades-long data is more valid than picking out two data points and pretending that they have any meaning at all?

Did you really fall for that? Seriously?

The two factors you cited were from two different years. Apples and oranges.

How may innocent people would you be willing to kill, Stipe, in order to kill more guilty people? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like to hear your answer.

Again, the reason that the number of innocents being put through the system is so high is that it is a result of having no death penalty, among other things. If you have a death penalty that is swiftly executed, and not like it is today, people will not act presumptuously, and crime rates will plummet. Therefore less crime, and therefore fewer people going through the system, and therefore less chance of an innocent person being caught up in it.

It's worded to make you confront your zeal for killing, and to make you realize that your thirst for vengeance causes you to discount the fact that you are advocating a policy that kills innocent people.

You won't answer, for precisely that reason. We all get that.

:noid:

 

[Stripe]

Your liberal mindset' doesn't seem to work, so well, does it?

:darwinsm:

:mock: Blablablaman.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jonahdog]

It's JUST AS WRONG to put an innocent to death as it is to let a guilty person go free.





:noid:

Really? No real concern for life, have you?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Really? No real concern for life, have you?

How in the world did you get that from what I said...?

It's equally as wrong to put an innocent person to death as it is to let a guilty person go free from punishment.

How does that make me not have any concern for life?

 

[Stripe]

How in the world did you get that from what I said...?

It's equally as wrong to put an innocent person to death as it is to let a guilty person go free from punishment.

How does that make me not have any concern for life?

Darwinists react to what they wish you'd say, rather than what you actually say.

And they never provide anything that contributes to the conversation.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

This coming from someone who would rather have "low" recidivism rates than 0% recidivism rate.

If you have to make up a story about what I think, it's probably a hint that you got things wrong. I'm pointing out that killing murderers is counterproductive, leading to more innocent people being killed.

It's JUST AS WRONG to put an innocent to death as it is to let a guilty person go free.

It's much worse. Blackstone's forumulation, a basic principal of British and American jurisprudence:

In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

Historically, the details of the ratio have varied, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained constant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

Barbarian, citing over a hundred people condemned to death, who happened to be cleared before they were killed:
But the state often condemns the innocent to death. Which doesn't bother you.

Of course it bothers us.

But not enough to stop it, it seems. I don't understand people who are so eager to kill that they would kill innocent people in order to execute murderers. Every state with a death penalty has ended up sentencing innocent people to death. And we only know about the relatively few, who managed to play the appeals process long enough for someone to get evidence showing them to be innocent. How many others were wrongly killed by the state is unknown.

That's why we want the death penalty, so that the number of total people going through the system drops,

Killing to stop killing seems to be a rather self-defeating process. As you see, states that kill murderers end up with higher murder rates.

so that there is less chance of an innocent person being condemned for something he didn't do.

This comes from a person who would rather have low rates of innocent people killed by the state than a rate of 0%.

It's JUST AS WRONG to put an innocent to death as it is to let a guilty person go free.

No, it's much, much worse. It means the state kills innocent people.

See, the problem with that claim, that "the state often condemns the innocent to death" is a symptom of a high crime rate

Violent crime is near historic lows in America. C'mon.

jury trials (justice by committee)

North Korea sure doesn't have the problem. I don't think you'd like the way it works.

God guarantees that if you have a death penalty (and a properly implemented one, at that) for capital crimes, the people will respect the law and government, and not act presumptuously.

But you can't show us where He said it? I think I know why.

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:11&version=NKJV

Nothing there says anything about killing a criminal.

Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel.And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously. - Deuteronomy 17:12-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:12-13&version=NKJV

Nor does that.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. - Romans 13:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans13:1-7&version=NKJV

Nor does that. If you have to add to scripture to make your point, that's an important clue.

Funnily enough, imposing the death penalty for murderers has a 0% recidivism rate.

Executing an innocent man also makes sure he never commits a crime. Killing innocent people who belong to groups that have a statistical indication of violence would work even better. You sure you want to make that argument?

I'll take the 0% recidivism rate over your "low" recidivism rate.

At the cost of higher murder rates and the killing of innocent people. How many innocent people would you be willing to have the state execute in order to kill murderers?

A percentage would be sufficient. How many?

Again, the reason that the number of innocents being put through the system is so high is that it is a result of having no death penalty, among other things. If you have a death penalty that is swiftly executed, and not like it is today,

If that were the case, most of those hundred or so people wrongly condemned to death, would be dead today. Is that what you would prefer? They were ultimately exonerated only because of the lengthy appeals process. And you'd take that away from them, dooming them.

people will not act presumptuously, and crime rates will plummet.

The data show a different result. In the 1800s, when appeals were very short, or nonexistent, there were far more murderers. Would you like me to show you that?

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you have to make up a story about what I think, it's probably a hint that you got things wrong. I'm pointing out that killing murderers is counterproductive, leading to more innocent people being killed.



It's much worse. Blackstone's forumulation, a basic principal of British and American jurisprudence:

In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

Historically, the details of the ratio have varied, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained constant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

Barbarian, citing over a hundred people condemned to death, who happened to be cleared before they were killed:
But the state often condemns the innocent to death. Which doesn't bother you.



But not enough to stop it, it seems. I don't understand people who are so eager to kill that they would kill innocent people in order to execute murderers. Every state with a death penalty has ended up sentencing innocent people to death. And we only know about the relatively few, who managed to play the appeals process long enough for someone to get evidence showing them to be innocent. How many others were wrongly killed by the state is unknown.



Killing to stop killing seems to be a rather self-defeating process. As you see, states that kill murderers end up with higher murder rates.



This comes from a person who would rather have low rates of innocent people killed by the state than a rate of 0%.



No, it's much, much worse. It means the state kills innocent people.



Violent crime is near historic lows in America. C'mon.



North Korea sure doesn't have the problem. I don't think you'd like the way it works.



But you can't show us where He said it? I think I know why.

It'd be nice if you could format your posts properly. You have your own words next to mine inside QUOTE tags.

Edit: I see you're trying to fix it, thanks!

 

[Jonahdog]

How in the world did you get that from what I said...?

It's equally as wrong to put an innocent person to death as it is to let a guilty person go free from punishment.

How does that make me not have any concern for life?

Simple, you appear to be willing to execute an innocent person to avoid letting a murderer go free. Am I wrong?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Simple, you appear to be willing to execute an innocent person to avoid letting a murderer go free. Am I wrong?

Yes. Very.

I recognize that many innocent people are killed as a result of our CURRENT legal system, which all but guarantees that innocents will be harmed or killed.

Which is why I want to get rid of the current legal system and implement one that does not have (or at the very least, minimizes the risk of) innocents being caught up in it, let alone harm or kill them.

This "let 10 guilty go free" is absolutely wicked, just as it is absolutely wicked to put 10 innocent to death.
[MENTION=2100]barb[/MENTION]arian, my reply to you is next, please be patient.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I think the trail of Jesus would be sufficient to highlight the problem with swift execution is sure justice argument. Humanity is imperfect. No justice system run by man will be perfect. Innocents will always be caught up in those systems either by error, incompetence, or malice. The only advantage to a system using a swift death penalty is the mistake gets buried literally before you have a chance to correct it.