Death Penalty Is A Deterrent

[Bullwrinkle]

For those of you too addled to grasp the obvious point here - The death penalty is a 100% effective deterrent in that it prevents convicted murderers from killing other prisoners, prison guards, ordering the killing of witnesses needed against them during their appeals, and of course the killing the public at large during an escape.

If you still can't understand this then please reply......


3...2.....1......Here comes Ole 73.

[sprtnbrn]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

Yup - a 29 year old policeman is dead because a murderer was sentenced to life in prison instead of the death penalty and you two can't quite seem to grasp the connection.

What a shocking surprise.

No the 29 year old policeman is dead because a murderer escaped from prison. The initial and subsequent punishments had nothing to do with the end result. Are you trying to be this stupid or does it come naturally? If the death penalty had been a deterrent, he wouldn't have committed the murder.

[sprtnbrn]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

For those of you too addled to grasp the obvious point here - The death penalty is a 100% effective deterrent in that it prevents convicted murderers from killing other prisoners, prison guards, ordering the killing of witnesses needed against them during their appeals, and of course the killing the public at large during an escape.

If you still can't understand this then please reply......


3...2.....1......Here comes Ole 73.

Being a successful deterrent means that the death penalty would prevent the first crime not subsequent ones. Your logic on this one is incredibly substandard.

[Bullwrinkle]

Originally Posted by sprtnbrn

Being a successful deterrent means that the death penalty would prevent the first crime not subsequent ones. Your logic on this one is incredibly substandard.

So if a deterrent is only partially effective then it is of not successful.

Well we might as well just empty our prisons as they clearly do not deter everyone from committing crimes.

Thanks for that lesson in substandard logic.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

Yup - a 29 year old policeman is dead because a murderer was sentenced to life in prison instead of the death penalty and you two can't quite seem to grasp the connection.

What a shocking surprise.

Originally Posted by Jack78

Yet another classic bullwrinkle-get-slapped-down thread.

He starts the thread but doesn't even know the meaning of the word "deterrent" and doesn't provide an example that supports his warped "thought process". Just classic.

wrinkles completely twisted logic aside, Rodreguez escaped in less time than the average inmate spends on death row ... just like this guy.

[sprtnbrn]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

So if a deterrent is only partially effective then it is of not successful.

Well we might as well just empty our prisons as they clearly do not deter everyone from committing crimes.

Thanks for that lesson in substandard logic.

Um nice try. The point of jail is to punish criminals for their misdeeds. The problem with the death is that it's irreversible. Since I have a major problem with problem of any margin of error involving killing someone, I'm opposed to the death penalty. I'd rather have 10,000 men serving life in prison than find out that the State murdered 1 innocent person.

[Bullwrinkle]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Yet another classic bullwrinkle-get-slapped-down thread.

He starts the thread but doesn't even know the meaning of the word "deterrent" and doesn't provide an example that supports his warped "thought process". Just classic.

wrinkles completely twisted logic aside, Rodreguez escaped in less time than the average inmate spends on death row ... just like this guy.

What a brilliant counter argument - the absurdly long appeals process that serves mostly to enrich lawyers at taxpayers expense - let him escape before his likely execution date.

Of course the solution to that would be to expedite the appeals process and then carry out sentence. Of course the certainly of swift application of the death penalty would of course add even more to the deterrent effect.

Rock-solid logic there Jacko - keep em coming.

[caspper69]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

What a brilliant counter argument - the absurdly long appeals process that serves mostly to enrich lawyers at taxpayers expense - let him escape before his likely execution date.

Of course the solution to that would be to expedite the appeals process and then carry out sentence. Of course the certainly of swift application of the death penalty would of course add even more to the deterrent effect.

Rock-solid logic there Jacko - keep em coming.

Give it up man. You're wrong.

To be an effective DETERRENT, which is what you keep talking about, the death penalty must cause people to NOT COMMIT A CRIME, BECAUSE THE PUNISHMENT IS TOO SEVERE.

What part of a guy going to jail for murder, not getting the death penalty, then escaping and killing someone ELSE has ABSOLUTELY ANY ****ING IOTA TO DO WITH DETERRENCE?

You just don't grasp the concept. Give it up. Move along. We are all now stupider for having read your ramblings wherein you continue to support a concept with which you clearly haven't the faintest idea about. PERIOD.

Thanks for playing. I fear that the concept of having a punishment be a deterrent is completely lost on you.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

What a brilliant counter argument - the absurdly long appeals process that serves mostly to enrich lawyers at taxpayers expense - let him escape before his likely execution date.

Of course the solution to that would be to expedite the appeals process and then carry out sentence. Of course the certainly of swift application of the death penalty would of course add even more to the deterrent effect.

Rock-solid logic there Jacko - keep em coming.

IOW, this thread and your arguments are moronic any way you look at it ... as usual. Classic straightwrinkle.

[Bullwrinkle]

Originally Posted by caspper69

Give it up man. You're wrong.

To be an effective DETERRENT, which is what you keep talking about, the death penalty must cause people to NOT COMMIT A CRIME, BECAUSE THE PUNISHMENT IS TOO SEVERE.

What part of a guy going to jail for murder, not getting the death penalty, then escaping and killing someone ELSE has ABSOLUTELY ANY ****ING IOTA TO DO WITH DETERRENCE?

You just don't grasp the concept. Give it up. Move along. We are all now stupider for having read your ramblings wherein you continue to support a concept with which you clearly haven't the faintest idea about. PERIOD.

Thanks for playing. I fear that the concept of having a punishment be a deterrent is completely lost on you.

Your futile argument would fascinate the family of the police officer killed by this guy. Had he been executed, that officer would still be alive. That you cannot grasp the concept of the death penalty as the ultimate deterrent against these scumbags committing any more crimes, says volumes about you and the sheltered world you must live in.

[Bullwrinkle]

Originally Posted by Jack78

IOW, this thread and your arguments are moronic any way you look at it ... as usual. Classic straightwrinkle.

Don't give up that easy Jacko - I know you've got some more brilliant logic and analysis to add to the discussion.

[Last Post]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

For those of you too addled to grasp the obvious point here - The death penalty is a 100% effective deterrent in that it prevents convicted murderers from killing other prisoners, prison guards, ordering the killing of witnesses needed against them during their appeals, and of course the killing the public at large during an escape.

If you still can't understand this then please reply......


3...2.....1......Here comes Ole 73.

Why do I feel like we're having an argument about who is better, the Adams Family or the Munsters?


Seriously BW, make an argument and stick by it. But first you have to make an understandable argument.

Yes, killing people will PREVENT them from murdering other people. Congratulations, you figured that out all on your own? It does not deter them, necessarily, because they no longer have free will. So they no longer can be deterred.

Deterring someone means reaching into their head and making them believe a certain way. You're trying to convince them. Killing them does not deter them.

Why am I responding to this crap? I need a ****ing life....

[caspper69]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

Your futile argument would fascinate the family of the police officer killed by this guy. Had he been executed, that officer would still be alive. That you cannot grasp the concept of the death penalty as the ultimate deterrent against these scumbags committing any more crimes, says volumes about you and the sheltered world you must live in.

No, you just have an idiotic argument. Your premise was about the death penalty deterring crime. I've never said it doesn't, never argued against the death penalty, in fact, never argued against anything other than your argument is stupid, with a capital S.

If you want to say they should've executed this guy, fine. Great point. Should've had him in a super-max, so he couldn't have escaped. Should've done a thousand things differently, I'm sure.

But to state that this is why the death penalty deters crime, is just a dumb argument that shows you don't understand what people mean when they say that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Give it up man. Sack up, admit your premise is completely wrong and off-base, and move on. No harm, no foul. Your incessant arguing with people here that you're right is foolish, and makes you look worse.