Texas Executes Man With IQ of 61; State Cites Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men” To Justify Killing - Polidicks

[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;37157818]It's a temporary solution, better than doing nothing at all and letting the criminals fuck everything freely. You can't just fix a country in a week.[/QUOTE] then I guess that's okay, just don't call it justice, don't say that it's the result of anything other than your country being run vindictively and incompetently, don't ever forget the people you had to kill because of said incompetence, and never again let the country get so fucked up that government-sanctioned murder is actually an [I]improvement[/I] on the state's situation. if your country is actually at the point where death is a pleasant alternative to going to jail, you should get right on that because that's fucking godawful. if, through some cosmic fluke, the country actually has bigger problems that need to be tended to, you must have elected the League of Eternal Evil into power.

[QUOTE=Valnar;37158445]So you are saying then that it could be more humane to kill a criminal in a third world country even if it is a crime lesser than murder? [/quote] No, i'm saying that it's a better option to kill off those drug lords instead of giving them a fancy house to run their operations from.

The end of that book is one of the few times a book has made me genuinely sad.

[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;37159249]No, i'm saying that it's a better option to kill off those drug lords instead of giving them a fancy house to run their operations from.[/QUOTE] you seem to be under the impression that prisons don't have guards if they're rehabilitative. they do, it just happens that the guards in those prisons don't think the people they're guarding are less than human.

Just a hint for a lot of people in here: Sentences are supposed to reform, not punish. Keep your barbaric revenge thirsts well away from the justice system. [editline]10th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;37145193]because the constitution doesn't make a distinction between mentally challenged and not mentally challenged[/QUOTE] I'm not American but I'm quite sure that you don't execute the mentally handicapped only because a piece of paper says so. Quite sure it's a moral no-no.

[QUOTE=acds;37165213]Just a hint for a lot of people in here: Sentences are supposed to reform, not punish. Keep your barbaric revenge thirsts well away from the justice system.[/QUOTE] Technically they're supposed to do both. It's supposed to teach criminals to become better people while making sure that they never commit crimes again. It's kinda hard to do one without doing the other. That being said, a shitty prison system that encourages shitty living standards and things like prison rape doesn't really accomplish either, so I still agree.

[QUOTE=acds;37165213]Just a hint for a lot of people in here: Sentences are supposed to reform, not punish. Keep your barbaric revenge thirsts well away from the justice system. [editline]10th August 2012[/editline] I'm not American but I'm quite sure that you don't execute the mentally handicapped only because a piece of paper says so. [B]Quite sure it's a moral no-no[/B].[/QUOTE] Morals are flexible and subjective. It's easier to have a piece of paper that tells you not to execute certain people because no one can argue with that. Maybe I believe that mentally handicapped people should be executed, in the grand scheme of things, my belief is no more invalid than yours, bits of paper are necessary.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;37166481]Technically they're supposed to do both. It's supposed to teach criminals to become better people while making sure that they never commit crimes again. It's kinda hard to do one without doing the other. That being said, a shitty prison system that encourages shitty living standards and things like prison rape doesn't really accomplish either, so I still agree.[/QUOTE] Actually no. It's almost natural to think of a sentence as a punishment for breaking the law, since practically every legal system in the world is subconsciously imbued with the concepts of "sin", "punishment" and "sinner". Exempli gratia, is absolutely acceptable to think of "murder" as "wrong", because morally, it is. However, the law doesn't deal in right and wrong. It deals in offenses. Offenses may or may not be also morally wrong, but it's not a direct consequence nor it's important in a legal process. For example, you could say that stealing from scammers is morally right, because you're just getting back what they stole from someone else. But you would break the law. So, those that think that pedophiles, murderers, rapists don't deserve to live because they did something [I]bad[/I] are simpletons that don't understand what the law is all about.

[QUOTE=acds;37165213] I'm not American but I'm quite sure that you don't execute the mentally handicapped only because a piece of paper says so. Quite sure it's a moral no-no.[/QUOTE] obviously that's the way i think if there was no constitution i would obviously be calling for round-the-clock mental handicap extermination

Okay, I'm really trying to understand here, why is execution never justified? What justifies keeping murderers alive?

[QUOTE=Mister B;37173002]Okay, I'm really trying to understand here, why is execution never justified? What justifies keeping murderers alive?[/QUOTE] Not allowing a flawed system that has gotten innocent people killed all in the name of meaningless vengeance. Now tell me what justifies killing them when they are contained in prison.

[QUOTE=Mister B;37173002]Okay, I'm really trying to understand here, why is execution never justified? What justifies keeping murderers alive?[/QUOTE] they're already in jail. you need to tell us why it's necessary to spend more money to go that extra step further, not the other way round.

[QUOTE=Cone;37173874]they're already in jail. you need to tell us why it's necessary to spend more money to go that extra step further, not the other way round.[/QUOTE] if you're using money as a justification then execution wins - life without parole is expensive for the taxpayer

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37173966]if you're using money as a justification then execution wins - life without parole is expensive for the taxpayer[/QUOTE] Thanks to the appeals process, it's actually more expensive to kill a person than it is to keep them in prison forever.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37173966]if you're using money as a justification then execution wins - life without parole is expensive for the taxpayer[/QUOTE] Why does this argument always come up even though it's wrong?

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37173966]if you're using money as a justification then execution wins - life without parole is expensive for the taxpayer[/QUOTE] if there were no appeals or due process, then this would be true. life without parole is still expensive, but not anywhere near as costly as sifting through all those appeals and case files for months or even years on end.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;37174052]Thanks to the appeals process, it's actually more expensive to kill a person than it is to keep them in prison forever.[/QUOTE] And if you're willing to chop that process, you are a douchebag of the highest order.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;37173838]Not allowing a flawed system that has gotten innocent people killed all in the name of meaningless vengeance. Now tell me what justifies killing them when they are contained in prison.[/QUOTE] Well by definition vengeance isn't meaningless. [del]And if they're going to be contained for life, what's even the point of keeping them for that long?[/del] ^Nevermind this, refer to next post.

[QUOTE=Mister B;37174611]Well by definition vengeance isn't meaningless. And if they're going to be contained for life, what's even the point of keeping them for that long?[/QUOTE] Life isn't life in the US afaik.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37174670]Life isn't life in the US afaik.[/QUOTE] Oh, that is true. And I suppose they may be proven innocent later down the line. Okay, so I don't want to say that everyone who has life in prison should be put to death, but I see no problem with murderers who are conclusively linked to the crime/have confessed being so.

[QUOTE=Mister B;37174752]Okay, so I don't want to say that everyone who has life in prison should be put to death, but I see no problem with murderers who are conclusively linked to the crime/have confessed being so.[/QUOTE] well, that's a question of two things: ethics, and money. ethics are irrelevant because they vary greatly from person to person, so the only thing you can use to base a reasonable opinion on the penalty is money. due process is very, very lengthy. as with anything that's lengthy, you'll have to pay people to do it. without the death penalty, there is room for error, so you don't have to spend as much time on it (but obviously you'd want to spend lots of time on it anyways, just not quite as much). less time spent = less money spent. so, with this, and the knowledge that everything but money is more or less academic, it's safe to conclude that there is indeed a problem with the death penalty.

My qualm with the death penalty is that lethal injection is too unnatural a way to go. Firing squad or nothing. Some people deserve to die.

Get me out of this state well at least my town is okay

[QUOTE=prooboo;37175684]Some people deserve to die.[/QUOTE] why "they just do" is not an acceptable answer

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37151946]human rights are an invention, they don't dictate what is and is not moral[/QUOTE] so are morals, and human rights are a collection of ideals formed by people with likeminded opinions on morality, so what does it matter [editline]11th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=prooboo;37175684]My qualm with the death penalty is that lethal injection is too unnatural a way to go. Firing squad or nothing. Some people deserve to die.[/QUOTE] your problem with a system that makes it possible to kill an innocent person, where your chances of survival are proportional to how much money you can throw at a lawyer, is that lethal injection isn't manly enough or something??

[QUOTE=Exxon;37143414]Honestly, even if they are mentally retarded. A criminal is a criminal, they are also people, they should have the same rights and restrictions and repercussions as any other citizen. [editline][/editline] and yes I realize how extremely handicapped he is. I still see it the same.[/QUOTE]That's a horrible thing to say. There are people out there with mental disabilities who don't know any better sometimes. My girlfriend babysits a kid every week who has down syndrome, autism and something else I can't remember and he can get quite violent occasionally. He could end up doing something bad, hopefully not, but the possibility is still there and he can't help it.

[QUOTE=prooboo;37175684]My qualm with the death penalty is that lethal injection is too unnatural a way to go. Firing squad or nothing. Some people deserve to die.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter how much you think someone deserves to die. The death penalty is a meaningless atrocity that risks innocent life for the sake of satisfying bloodlust. And don't even tell me that it isn't for the sake of bloodlust. You justifying it by saying some people deserve to die is a perfect example of lusting for the blood of criminals.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;37174228]Why does this argument always come up even though it's wrong?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Xenomoose;37174052]Thanks to the appeals process, it's actually more expensive to kill a person than it is to keep them in prison forever.[/QUOTE] I'm well aware of this. See my posts earlier in the thread - I'm talking about removing the extra time and money spent on trials and appeals for deathrow inmates to the level of LWP. Basically, the sheer amount of money spent on deathrow appeals is not enough to justify the small amount of innocent lives saved from being executed. That money could be better spent elsewhere. [editline]11th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Boxbot219;37176577]It doesn't matter how much you think someone deserves to die. The death penalty is a meaningless atrocity that risks innocent life for the sake of satisfying bloodlust. And don't even tell me that it isn't for the sake of bloodlust. You justifying it by saying some people deserve to die is a perfect example of lusting for the blood of criminals.[/QUOTE] I don't have any bloodlust, I see execution as the only sane alternative to rehabilitation. Life without parole is the worst of all worlds. [editline]11th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Cone;37175363]well, that's a question of two things: ethics, and money. [B]ethics are irrelevant because they vary greatly from person to person[/B], so the only thing you can use to base a reasonable opinion on the penalty is money.[/quote] oh shit what are you doing

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37180595]I'm well aware of this. See my posts earlier in the thread - I'm talking about removing the extra time and money spent on trials and appeals for deathrow inmates to the level of LWP. Basically, the sheer amount of money spent on deathrow appeals is not enough to justify the small amount of innocent lives saved from being executed. That money could be better spent elsewhere. [/QUOTE] This might possibly be the most disgusting pro death penalty argument I have ever heard that wasn't trolling. I am not even kidding. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37180595]I don't have any bloodlust, I see execution as the only sane alternative to rehabilitation. [B]Life without parole is the worst of all worlds.[/B] [/QUOTE] So instead of making prison a more humane experience the solution is to keep using the death penalty. Clearly sane.

To justify the death penalty, people that mass murder or commit a crime that is brutal should get the death penalty, and not this bs appeals for 20 years before they die. The world does not need them, and taxpayers do not need to pay for them to have a nice life in prison, they should just be executed after being found guilty, and none of this "insanity" nonsense.