I've summed this thread up to show the Bluefront way of arguing. I mean, instead of upsetting ourselves, we can just read through this, weep and then let it go.
Bluefront wrote:(...) murder some old lady
aristide1 wrote:1. A quick death is too good for him.
2. Let him rot in jail.
LAThierry wrote:By all means, if someone is convicted of first degree murder, put them in prison and throw away the key.
NeilBlanchard wrote:A person who has been wrongly convicted can always be let out of prison.
aristide1 wrote:(...) you're asking him how to he actually deal with all the cases DNA has proven the prosecution wrong.
Perhaps what the real question is why a liberal like you needs to seek the truth to the end while the conservative needs only the appearance of justice?
Bluefront wrote:Sure....like I said, let the guy go free.
(...)...some old lady (...rant...) Big deal.
LAThierry wrote:BlueFront, it's one thing to have strong opinions but here I'm wondering if you lack reading comprehension. The very article you linked to makes it clear that the guy has already been found GUILTY, and that the trial in question is the sentencing phase. No one is talking about letting the murderer go free, ONLY you. The murderer himself isn't asking to be let go, ONLY you. An exaggeration like that is beyond sarcasm, I don't know what you're trying to say or prove...
Bluefront wrote:(...) Liberal logic of some of these posts. (...) The old ladies life (...) Well.....except the old lady of course. But she's dead, violently murdered. Somehow I can't seem to forget that. I know others here already have.
Bluefront wrote:Punishments of any sort never prevent crime...right? The old ladies life can't be brought back....right? Freedom for the guy would save the state any more expense. Everybody benefits...right?
(...)how about actually engaging with the arguments that are put to you, rather than making up some straw men so you can shoot them down with gay abandon.
LAThierry wrote:Maybe it makes you feel better to place the adjective "liberal" in front of everything you disagree with, but you use "liberal" ad nauseum to the point of forgetting what it means.
Bluefront wrote:So you don't like the bleeding-heart Liberal label? Start having sympathy for the victim and his family....rather than the convicted murderer.
NeilBlanchard wrote:(writes about penitentiaries, which may also save old ladies)
Bluefront wrote:So yeah, I see what you're getting at. You think the life of a murderer is more valuable than his death under a legal execution.
aristide1 wrote:Your the one doing the shifting. Everyone is talking about process, while you keep addressing the single case. That alone doesn't make the overall process for everyone correct.
You also ignore the fact that a lot of crazies who clearly didn't do it admit to crimes. The police ignore them after they rule them out. What would you do with them, with your "conservative" views?
NeilBlanchard wrote:A good, well written law must work in all situations.
(...) OTOH, if they are forced to reconsider their actions for all the remaining days of their lives, they may choose to repent -- and even if they don't, why should we give them an easy out? I want them to suffer the guilt of what they have done.
Bluefront wrote:So Niel....you want to spare the murderer his execution so he can "repent" while in prison, thus saving his soul. Something like that.....
mattthemuppet wrote:And this has nothing to do with some poor old granny being murdered, so stop playing the populist line - it devalues your argument. No one's forgetting that someone was murdered (...)
Bluefront wrote:(Ignores all posts saying they also want to save old ladies, just not the BF way. Instead he repeats that his way would:)...let the old ladies live. Something wrong with that....
NeilBlanchard wrote:(...) That's not what I wrote.
(...) Again, a good law works in all situations. If irrefutable evidence (like DNA) exonerates someone after they have been convicted and appealed -- does that give you at least a little doubt about our system? What about the fact the people who receive the death penalty strongly correlates with the race of the victim?
NeilBlanchard wrote:How is it that a large majority of the nations around the world, that find capital punishment repugnant have much lower murder rates? (...)
*China, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, USA -- that's pretty auspicious company we keep!
Bluefront wrote:(ignores statistics, ignores statements about longer imprisonment, ignores any direct questions and instead, much to the surprize of all of us, decides to write:) leads me to suspect you have little sympathy for the old murdered woman (...)
And your impression of what prison is all about, doesn't match the reality of today's prison. A prison sentence today means cable tv, work-out gyms, warm accommodations, good food, libraries, free lawyers......not to mention sex and drugs. This is hardly punishment, more like a vacation.
NeilBlanchard wrote:Prison is anything but cushy -- or are you suggesting that he may be a homeless person who figures that he can be living the life of Riley, if only he can get himself convicted of this horrendous murder?
(...) I want to try and avoid the murders in the first place -- poverty and a cornucopia of guns are very important contributing factors to a violent society.
...apparently only in OTHER countries. Gun regulation, someone? As it happens, BF spends a lot of time pointing out how bad it works in USA, although surely US practices are much more conservative than most of OECD - meaning CP, longer punishments and lose gun control.
Bluefront wrote:Your approach to crime and murder reduction hasn't been working.
NeilBlanchard wrote:So by your logic, in countries where they have capital punishment for adultery, rape, sodomy, drug trafficking, human trafficking, corruption, apostasy (the formal renunciation of one's religion) -- should have very low or non-existent levels of those crimes?
(The crimes ARE the same, according to available statistics. The "our people are different" argument sounds like "the Asian Way", to pull a less insulting comparison.)
Bluefront wrote:Our situation is completely different, and so are our people. And so are the crimes.
What works here, might not work elsewhere.....and the other way around. I'm still waiting to hear of a way that would have prevented the murder of the old lady in the first post. I suggested a way that might work.....making the punishments harder, more certain. I've heard nothing else.
neon joe wrote:Take a look at Neil's data (...)
If it isn't working anywhere else, why do you think it will work here?
Bluefront wrote:And the alternative is...... ?
Scoop wrote:Death sentence isn't even a punishment, it's the easy way out.
neon joe wrote:I'm not making any excuses for anyone. All I'm saying is that the trend for countries so far has been 'more capital punishment' = 'more crime'.
Bluefront wrote:(Long rant about a psychopath who says prison is swell)
neon joe wrote:So your evidence of how great prison is comes from quotes from a man with abnormalities in his brain?
Bluefront wrote:Murder it seems has become a ho-hum thing all over.....so much for civilized society. It's only a matter of time. Dis-arm all the good guys, close your eyes to further murders, open the prison doors and give all the departing murderers enough money to become model citizens.....oh, and keep voting Democrat. That'll fix everything. Right...... Richard Speck would approve.
Oh and you can always justify the murder of old ladies by pointing out a completely different situation where something happened that you don't like. Just reverse the old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right".
neon joe wrote:(...)if you look at the data, you can see a trend. If CP was working, crime rate would be low in those countries.
(...) My 'blanket statement' is a generalization based on data that's available. I have yet to see any conclusive data that CP acts as a crime deterrant...
VanWaGuy wrote:Neil above posted death penalty rates with no corresponding crime rate statistics. There is not enough there to draw any conclusions from or even make a point.
(Isn't this argument supporting the "liberal" point of view? Btw did you compare the figures with laws regulating firearms?)
NeilBlanchard wrote:(...)Notice too, that firearms are used in almost 3 out of 4 murders, and 3 out of 4 victims know their attacker.
Bluefront wrote:(...) "Among inmates under sentence of death and with available criminal histories at yearend 2006:
-- nearly 2 in 3 had a prior felony conviction
-- 1 in 12 had a prior homicide conviction. "
(...) Using this statistic, there is no reason murders, further murders, could not be prevented.
neon joe wrote:Again, evidence that CP is not a deterrant to crime.
Bluefront wrote:(Mixes up "deterrent" with "prevention", but actually makes a point by arguing that executed murderers seldom get the chance to murder yet again. Ignores posts arguing for life imprisonments.)
(The liberals in western EU being the only exception when they sport lower murder rates without resorting to medieval punishments makes those countries per default exceptions. Right?)
Your approach to crime and murder reduction hasn't been working. Perhaps it's time to try another approach......harsher penalties, and more certain Capitol Punishment when that is the sentence.
This argument always amuses me, although it usually raves about some "liberal" "experiment" that "isn't working" (out of interest is there an American senator who spouts this? It is usually too similarly worded for it to be original thoughts amongst all these people).
Various crime deterrents used over the last few millennia:
Funnily enough there was demand for these punishments for the entire time they were legal. They are obviously great deterrents.
neon joe wrote:Look at the statistics (...)
Besides, do you think that someone who is about to commit murder thinks about that anyway? (...)
You can say that crime is prevented by CP, but you can't provide any evidence...
(This post, filled with facts and well argued standpoints, speaks for itself:) As expected....more pity for the murderers, with the implication that murder cannot be prevented, no matter what method society attempts.
Dead bodies litter the streets. Old ladies are beaten to death with their throats slashed. Police are killed enforcing parking rules......and yet. It would be cruel and unusual...murder even.... to punish the murderers in a manner befitting the crime.
Makes me wonder if the murder-apologists foresee a situation in their own future, where they, themselves, might benefit from an end to extreme punishment.
neon joe wrote:
I haven't said that murder can't be prevented. I haven't ever
said that I feel any kind of pity for murderers. To suggest either of these is completely false. I'm just saying is that CP is not a deterrant to crime. If you're so sure it is, let's see some evidence.
NeilBlanchard wrote:Prevent murder by removing the large supply of guns.
(You want statistics? No, wait, that's all unapplicable. Not only would I then address the problem in general whereas you BF wants a quick solution to the example he has chosen to present. Also this is America, after all, so comparisons are futile.)
Bluefront wrote:Now.....tell me how any gun law would have removed that gun from his hands, after he bought it on the streets.
aristide1 wrote:[Some educated investrigating would reveal greedy gun companies completely run by white men.
After that the discussion deteriorates into pie-throwing. I'm tempted to have a go at Erssa's arguments also, but no time for it now. I do however find his desperate Saudi Arabia quote rather typical, don't you think?