It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
Suggections of things that should happen drug users instantly rehibalitation camp.
Originally posted by Hellmutt
To get it back on track, is death penalty a way to make more room in the overloaded prisons? I like the other solution better...
quote: Originally posted by instar
Can you explain why you think thats the case? folk think , if i kill someone, ill die, so i might aswell kill someone? I cant agree with that. folk dont kill folk because the punishment is the same as the crime.
You want an explanation for my reasoning? I'm going to have to rehash what's been thoroughly covered earlier in this thread here...
Actually evidence supports my argument:
quote: Again, if you dont beleive thats the way to go, then whats your idea for improvement ? how can you possibly deter crime without harsh punishment?
Coretta Scott King:
..............bla bla bla
Also don't make the mistake of believing capital punishment can be used as support and/or treatment of surviving victims. That is a completely different issue.
quote: Until such time as a utopia without such crimes exist, we need the death penalty to prevent re-offence. too many get parole from bleeding heart authorities and go out and rape and kill again.
Again. Life without possibility of parole would solve this problem - without the negative aspects of capital punishment.
And giving something 'tangible' back would be to have them murdered right back?
What you should be asking is if capital punishment shows to not deter but actually increase the murder rate where it is retained as opposed to where it's abolished - should it still be kept as a practice?
Originally posted by instar
Statistics do not explain WHY the death penalty increases murder crime, only that ,apparently it does.
Nothing but rehashed statistic above. How will you deter crime?
Very compassionate woman, ONE very compassionate woman, not a majority!
Do you think the relatives of a criminal serving life should have to pay for them then? Why should the taxpayer foot the bill?
No, giving back something tangible would be providing resource for research, indirectly benifitting society, or barring that, death and donating organs to give life to others in return for the life they stole. Dont twist things to suit yourself.
on the contrary, ive already stated i think it should be retained for reasons above. You still are avoiding making even a single suggestion as to how to deter crime or rehabilitate crims, or why society should pay to keep these scum alive.
Your deliberate circular reasoning is p*ssing me off now. If you can do no more than spout statistics as an argument then why bother.
Originally posted by instar
LMAO I think its your mind thats clouded, with anti death penalty zeal!
You have consistantly and deliberatly failed to address my questions directly, instead choosing to quote me out of context and do you best to paint me as delusional and yourself the wise expert.
You even go so far as to deliberatly and childishly insult me because you cannot directly answer questions put to you, this just shows your frustration.
I have asked you numerous times the same question and you are still refusing to answer directly.
Originally posted by Durden
Personally, I also think a lot more can be done preemptively, through working with troubled youths and their environment so as to reduce crime and violent behavior before it becomes an actual threat to society and/or themselves.
Originally posted by instar
you prefer to simply rehash the same statements you have already made while avoiding any input of your own outside what you have already said.
You dont like the death penalty
you prefer incarceration
you agree incarceration does not deter
you state the reason for incarceration as deterance and protection of society at its own expense
you consider anything outside of incarceration as cruel and unusual
you dont consider incarceration itself cruel and unusual, even on death row
you agree the death penalty is too expensive because of the fact it takes so long under your system
you beleive in rehabilitation for scum
you refuse to suggest any alternative to the current system which you acknowledge as failing.
you refuse to suggest any idea of your own regards what "will" deter crime
you refuse to elaborate on any idea you may have about how to rehabilitate said scum
you claim moral objection to the death penalty yet offer no suggestion of how society might prevent these scum from existing in the first place
you offer no opinion of why these scum commit crime nor insight into their mentality, which you must understand since you beleive they can be rehabilitated, that might lead to a way to rehabilitate them.
You selectivly choose to ignore certain text within replys for which you seem unable to formulate response.
As I stated several post back, you simply shout "nay" from the window of your ivory tower, and when when asked to give ideas you cite again and again the same statistics, nothing new, no constructive input to the issue, yet you attemp to paint an image of your dissenters as uninformed idiots, and of their suggestions as "nonsense".
You and I can go no further with this issue under these circumstances Durden, So I'll leave it at that while we remain relativly civil. cheers