Hereye go. From here--

http://www.free-essays.us/dbase/d6/xaj54.shtml



""Opponents of the death penalty argue that there is no deterrent effect. However, there are a number of studies that indicate that the contrary is true. A study by W. Bailey of the period from 1967-68 showed a deterrent effect in twenty-seven states.(8) A later study by him showed a deterrent effect in twenty-five states.(9) During the moratorium on Capital punishment in the United States, murder increased by one hundred percent.(10) A review of the fourteen nations who abolished the death penalty showed that the murder rate increased by seven percent from the five year pre-abolition period to the five year post-abolition period.(11) Since 1990, Harris County, a single county in Texas has had more executions than any other state in the United States. During the period between 1990 and 1995, Harris County has had a forty-eight percent drop in crime, the greatest decrease in the United States. In Harris County, the highest homicide rate was in 1981, one year before the death penalty was reinstated in Texas.(12) All of these studies indicate that implementation of the death penalty correlates with a drop in the homicide rate. A study by Stephen K. Layton at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill showed that each execution deters an average of eighteen murders.(1 By increasing the use of the death penalty, thousands of lives could be saved. In Utah, there have been five executions since 1977. During the year following each execution, there was a significant drop-off in the homicide rate.(14) Criminologist Steven Stack recently found that after a widely publicized execution, there was a drop in the homicide rate. He found this drop to be more significant with whites than with blacks.(15) Hyam Barshay, a poet, said, The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down.(16) Although the death penalty is a deterrent, it is not nearly as strong a deterrent as it would be were it implemented more often. The deterrence theory states that in order for a crime to be deterred, justice must be swift, severe, and certain. With numerous appeals, the death penalty is not swift. In fact, the average amount of time spent on death row before being executed is ten years.""

Your right they are seperate, your wrong I never stated, implied or have ever supposed them to be the same, I am not suggesting anything they ARE born of moarilty which is exactly my point, which you have repeatedly failed to refute. Why dont you start by demonstrating a law that is not born from or reflective of a moral principle

The death sentence

Laws were born from "custom" and tradition not morals.

I could provide many links but if you are curious look into it yourself

If your question was, "Do we have the right to check someone's right to life because we think their life sucks?" the answer is "No". If your question was, "Should we be taking a better approach to dealing with the issue of unwanted children?" the answer is "Yes".

I would hope not, since I'm not a liberal you fucking moron.

I think this is Dyshade speak for "I have no argument", since you very rarely seem to refrain from repeating yourself in the face of actual logic.

That's because I never claimed that there was a way to make sure a murderer can never conceivably kill again while keeping them alive. Stop setting up a strawman. The benefits of removing the death penalty and using prison labor are, however, as I have explained to you repeatedly and despite your general ignorance and unwillingness to learn, far greater than the extremely mitigable chances of them killing while in prison. This is generally the case for society- you know, we don't kill people in general because, while that would insure they couldn't commit crimes, they're more productive alive?

I'm glad you have logical arguments, and aren't just sitting around with your thumb up your ass using logical fallacies.


When you're not sure if the percentage is one percentage or another one that's 250% the size of the first, I'm disinclined to take your uncited statistics seriously. However, this is, even were it factual, an argument for tightening the release/parole system, not for advocating the death penalty.

Unwanted children are only that if they are born.



tut tut.... such anger only shows how childish you are



You sir have absolutely not a logical bone in your body. Sympathy and pity yes but no logic.



Murderers are what we speak of not your run of the mill criminals. you keep intertwining the two in some sort of Dark Messiah Speak. Murderers are unproductive and a drain on society. Lets stick with them shall we and leave the other criminals to other conversations.



Sweet. More anger. Let it out. It feels good does it not?




Yeah the statistics per state fluctuate. From 6% in one state all the way to 15% for another. So in the United States 6-15%. Pretty darn neat how that works. Of course your perceptions of my posts are blurred by your unproductive hatred of my opinions. Perhaps if you listened without the horse blinders on you would get more out of it instead of your classic "Me Dark Messiah you stupid**** Whereas **** equals "moron" or "idiot" your two favorite terms of endearment.

You should leave your amusing comparisons and witty little insults at the door and focus more so on the discussion at hand so as not to lose your train of thought.

Oh. Utilizing the ideals I have seen you place forth upon this site I would have to say that it is my opinion that you are a glaring liberal. You might not be a complete one but you surely are working on it.

Yes, well, it's hardly the first time you've been completely wrong about something.


Not really. You can't force a fetus to either stop being alive or a human being by simple semantics.

It's true that it's no longer an unwanted child if it's dead. Then it's a dead child.



The word you want is 'contempt'.


Do explain how you came to this conclusion.


Except for the ones that murdering the prisoners in enforcing the death penalty. Them we keep around, I imagine? Then we've already established that the principle of murder being justifiable is sound, it's only the degree which we need to settle on.

Would it be justifiable to only kill those murderers where there was absolutely no argument of self-defense or accident? Perhaps. Certainly the issue here isn't that no one deserves to die. But is it worth the vulnerability to the government that granting them sanctioned murder permits to kill the relative small number that definitely deserve it? I don't think so. And your statement that they are a drain on society is wrong- this is why you cannot seperate the issues. Large problems need to be seen largely. Prison labor removes the drain on society, makes murderers actually repay their debt, and most of all is reformative. First degree murderers I generally wouldn't let out at all, mind you, unless perhaps after forty or fifty years, but forty years of hard labor is actually reformative where forty years of sitting around watching cable, shivving people and getting gang-raped is not.


Then you should have either used the national average or said according to state, because you indicated a generality. Regardless, if you weren't busy feeling put down upon, you would've noticed where I said,

Explain to me why we should keep murderers alive? Entertain me with your suppositions.

No. The word I wanted was childish. Because you are childish. I also can be childish at moments. The difference being I can easily admit to such.

Murderers kill in jail as well DM. What good tightening the parole/release system if they kill inside?

Saying 6-15% should have let you know yet instead you assume stupidity upon my part whereas I was assuming intelligence on yours. Seems the both of us were wrong on that point. I apologize.

Sheesh. If you do not know the difference between a murderer and a state sanctioned executioner I really should end this conversation. The distinction is great. Calling them murderers is a slap in thier faces as they usually sacrifice a great deal in order to save you an dothers in society from having to ever deal with those monsters.

If you wish to save those murderers I suggest you become thier guards. That way you can see directly just what kind of scum they are. I knew several of the guards who worked at Pelican Bay State Prison in California and they were all pretty much of the same mind; thier jobs would be much safer were the murderers disposed of instead of allowed to live. Mainly because they always tried to kill again, and sometimes they actually succeeded. Most of the time when they did not succeed it was because of one of those guards that you are so cordially comparing to murderers.

It actually pisses me off that you can so easily do so. Mainly because your bleeding moral heart is not taking into consideration the lives those scumbags have taken nor the lives that they can continue to effect as long as they live. But moreso because you can call those brave men who do the dirty work your little ass would never have the balls to do "murderers".

a) They pull a switch. It's all well and good to cry manly tears of manliness, but let's cut out some of the bullshit. They're not heroes.


b) Murder is the act of a human being taking another human life. That is the objective definition. You can use all the soft words you want to try and describe murder you view as justifiable, but it remains murder. There are indeed acts of justifiable murder, although this isn't it, and you would do well to simply admit that.



As I do so love repeating myself

a) Sanctioned murder is a dangerous power to give the government. It is one better avoided where it is avoidable.

b) We know that people have been put to death in the past for "heinous" murders they did not actually commit. Juries are more likely to award the death penalty for sensationalism and appeal to vivid detail than for an actually rock-solid case.

c) Executing someone necessarily takes a lot of time and money, due to the many necessary checks on the system in place. Forced prison labor generates revenue or product in excess of that expended in maintaing basic living standards. Erego, it is more desirable for society to keep prisoners imprisoned and laboring rather than killing them.

Like when you're losing an argument, and you just start calling people childish instead of, you know, arguing?

Why do you have a prison system in which prisoners can easily kill each other? Why don't you hire someone who's not a flaming retard to redesign the prison system? As it is, many of the murder committed inside of jails aren't even carried out by those in for murder, so your solution to this problem is significantly less useful than the other one.

I was assuming you knew how to cite facts in a case correctly, but then assumption is the brother of all fuckups.

My favorite site in the world-- dictionary.com

""mur·der /ˈmɜrdər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mur-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object) 4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
–verb (used without object) 7. to commit murder. ""

Now you may at any time admit that you are stupid and do not understand the english language or any of its connotations if you so wish. It really does not matter because you have admitted as much by your words.

Please at least pick up a dictionary before you try to mutilate the English language.

I'm almost tempted to allow you this point, because God knows you can't actually win any of the important ones, but defining murder as, "To kill inhumanly, barborously, or unlawfully" essentially means to do it in the third person, so your attempted rebuttal is moot.

the death sentence is a penalty not a law you cant for example break the death penalty like you would the speeding limit. sorry try again.

The Law goes--- if you commit an act of premeditated murder in the first degree you can be tried and convicted and sentenced to death-- IE-- the Death Penalty is a Law.

Look. Both Laws and Morals come from the same place. That is the thing that they share and why they are so comparable. Yet they are two distinct and seperate entities. Niether one was birthed from the other. Both come from tradition and culture that goes hand in hand with all societal organizations. So did laws come from morals? No. Did morals sprout from laws? No. Did both come from societies traditions and cultures? Yes. They both have the same parent and yet both are stringently different.
You can argue semantics all day long like Dark Messiah there and that will not change that fact.