Correlation between Anti-Gun v Anti Death Penalty Views

Yes, and that's what's left after Percy convinced him to clean up the OP.

Just how many crimes are intending to punish with the death penalty? Armed robbery? burglary?The death penalty is an alternative to punishing people who, for the most part, are never getting out of jail, ever. There is absolutely no evidence that either penalty has an advantage over the other for deterring crime. When does life begin? Might we not reach different answers about this important question if we had different answers to that question? Have you ever used a condom? Do you have a family of ten kids?I don't see how anyone who has considered these issues would ask the questions you do. The answers I, and others are giving you are the easy answers anyone could anticipate if they exerted the smallest effort. Typical.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'd like to see you support this proposition because it seems contrary to my experience. Executions in NC are fairly rare, and because of that infrequency, they seem to draw enormous national attention. On top of that, the victims families, who are among those who would be comforted the most, are front and center at executions if that is their choice. By what measure is the publicity too little or insufficient?I note in passing that CS made this point before I did. Yes, I agree that the death penalty fails as a deterrent, but do you really believe people are motivated to kill more because there is capital punishment? Or are you saying something else? What support is there for this proposition?

I don't think this is true. Executions used to be public. Also, there was a recent execution in Arizona that took nearly two hours. The state and the the victim's family seem perfectly fine with that, and the reaction I've read in my places on the internet indicates that many people agree. There seems to be a large segment of the population who would be perfectly okay with getting rid of the eight amendment. That's what I thought. Now can you back up your feelings with something more substantive?

Interesting, yes. The topic of punishing people in this way has been the subject of science fiction. (The Jigsaw Man). But in my opinion, the idea that criminals forfeit their rights to their organs is ultimately a horrifying equation. I don't think this makes the death penalty more moral, but it would make it more attractive.ABE:We've actually had three botched executions all attributable to the use of new combinations of drugs used as lethal injections. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is no issue with this. I see no difference between this and my own decision to be an organ donor. I believe that the Death penalty grafted onto some kind of involuntary organ donor program would inevitably become a new kind of evil that's even worse than the current state of affairs.

It might also lead to a state interest in reducing the number of appeals so we get the organs while the donor is still young and hale. Thus enhancing the chance of executing the innocent.

If you have a point make it. My point is that being public in the past did not result in people wanting to get rid of the death penalty here. Hangings and Guillotinings seem to make great spectacles and picnic opportunities.I can provide you with a counter argument if you don't have one of your own. But given that you were dismissing CS for not providing an answer to your argument, you might look pretty silly if you take me up on it. Exactly. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I could say that yes, but in this case, the idea was just to get you to provide some support other than your feelings, and you've finally done that. And besides you've already acknowledged the issue. It matters because in order to accomplish a change it is necessary to persuade people, and the majority of people do not currently have the opinion that the death penalty is abhorrent. The death penalty is barbaric, it is applied is applied in a discrimination fashion, and we have certainly executed innocent people. And on top of all that, it is costly and ineffective at deterrence. It can only be defended using an eye for an eye mentality that I find incompatible with Christianity. Any one of those reasons are sufficient for me.However, you are debating the issue with at least one person who does not hold the opinion that the death penalty is a marker of an ill society. Making up BS answers that you cannot support is not helpful.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Is continuance of immoral laws really that difficult to understand? While it is true that the UK has progressed beyond the sad state of affairs that is the US position on the death penalty, one might note that the UK did have the death penalty for about 260-270 years dating from the creation of the UK. That's just a tiny bit older than the US is as a country.But you do have a point. The US is in some pretty dismal company. And while we are divided evenly over a lot of issues, about 65 percent of us are in favor of the death penalty despite largely agreeing on the negative aspects. I find that difficult to explain.

I suppose you will care when violations of the 8th amendment result in the loss of the right to carry out the death penalty. Do you actually care about the constitution, or not?

Typical. You are not supportive of the constitution. You just want your guns. Why do conservatives hate America?

I have to assume that your missing the point is deliberate. As I explicitly stated, it is your expressed lack of respect for the other amendments of the constitution, and in particular the eighth amendment that makes it clear that your love of guns is something other than an embracing of the constitution.You show the same failure to grasp the arguments of others in every thread you participate in. That plus your tendency to start threads on ridiculous premises followed by your long disappearances mean that it may take months for you to even understand what you are disagreeing with.

Your math is wrong. If you execute someone who was going to get life imprisonment, then you don't have any effect on crime in the streets. If you are instead planning to execute people who would normally get out after a few years then you need to make a case that you're justified in executing a murderer before he actually kills someone.

That's not what you said, or at least it is not the statement you made with which I took issue. You said that if we removed violent criminals after their first offense, that we could cut the crime rate in half. Nobody would argue with you if you simply said that dead men do not commit crimes.There are quite a few things wrong with your accounting, and I've already pointed out one or two of those errors. Another problem is that we don't catch always catch criminals after their first offense.I would expect that someone found of calling others fools would take some pains to be correct, but what I find instead is that you post sloppy stuff, lie or are wrong when you recount what you've posted, and are quick to blame others for not figuring out what you really meant. In this case, it is extremely difficult to interpret your remarks in a way that makes any sense. In fact, it is impossible to do so. Nobody said this. You're an idiot.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.