After that bridge collapse in Minneopolis that killed 13 people, I was thinking, we should outlaw bridges!! After all those damn things tend to collapse sooner or later, not to mention suicidical people can jump from them. Hell, the Golden Gate bridge alone has a suicide in every 2 weeks!! So we don't need bridges! They should be illegal! We could just use ferries to transport people over rivers. Now of course if one of you might see a slight analogy between outlawing bridges and capital punishment, you might be not completely wrong. Of course people would die (they do) in ferry accidents, just like innocent people are in prison, so the analogy is pretty much perfect!! But just in case, let's outlaw bridges!!! That is the smart thing to do, instead of trying to build them better.... P.S.: I would like to dedicate this thread to the ignorants who keep bringing up the "we don't want to execute innocents" excuse. After all we don't want bridges to collapse either...
There is an economic imperative to provide good transportation across rivers. Once someone is in prison, they are no longer any kind of a threat to the general public, so execution isn't necessary for the public good. The bridge inspection process is much more reliable than the justice system. The Minneapolis bridge collapse was preventable.
there is a difference between I do not want to intentionally kill someone who might be innocent and I do not want to make something which is not designed to kill but rather to help people but which may kill people accidently. think of the difference in the way you would react in 2 situations. 1) You are out with a girlfriend or boyfriend. They are knocked to the ground by someone in a rage who elbows your __________friend because your___________friend "damaged his car.", something your __________friend did not do. 2) You are out with a girlfriend or boyfriend. They are knocked to the ground by someone by who raised their arm to hail a cab. Which of the ones who knocked your ________friend to the ground is the one you think should go to jail?
If we had organ donation from the executed, there would be an economic/social imperative for executions too. Ferries, my dear....
Can you imagine how much traffic tie ups would happen if everyone had to use them? Most bridges in America aren't more than quarter mile long, many much less. A ferry to carry all those cars only a quarter mile? Imagine the gas wasted, the tempers flying.
Everyone agrees that the benefit of bridges outweighs that costs (in terms of dollars spent to make a safe bridge and lives lost when bridges collapse anyway). Not everyone agrees that the benefits of capital punishment outweigh the costs (in terms of dollars spent making sure innocent people aren't executed and lives lost when innocent people are executed anyway). Regarding the organ donation thing you mentioned, yeah, thay would give a slight increase in societal benefit from executions, but it's not at all clear that over-all benefits would outweigh the costs.
When the penalty for attempting to convict an innocent person of a capital crime is the same as the penalty for attempting to push a bystander off the Golden Gate Bridge, I'll try taking this ridiculous "argument" seriously.
I've noticed that whenever people start taking apart your illogical suggestions you always try to back out of by saying something like the above^^^. And you've made no point at all in this thread - absolutely not a single one. I really, sincerely hope that sometime soon you will learn to think things through a little better before starting to talk. That's a pretty foolish habit that you have right now.
Quotes or references please! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Look, I understand your ethernal frustration because of your inability to see the validity of my analogies, but that is your problem. I use sometimes ridiculous analogies when the argument is ridiculous itself. Nobody in their right mind would think anyone seriously would argue for banning bridges, that is just stupid. But you know what else stupid? The "innocents can be killed" argument. Nobody wants to execute innocents! Execution would be used only if the criminal is 120% GUILTY beyond any doubt! If there is the slightest doubt of the guilt, the death penalty wouldn't be used. End of story, stop using that stupid argument!!
I've never even once commented on that "innocents can be killed" junk!! Just why are you raving at ME about that????????? It sure wouldn't hurt if you tried a little harder to pay attention...
There aren't that many executions. Traffic fatalities far outnumber them, and in any case, we have a choice to kill someone or not. Such choices don't exist with accidents.
On your planet of efficient, mistake-free, infallible, uncorrupted, and well-motivated governments, capital punishment might only be objectionable for its other defects and dangers. On this planet, the inevitable killing of the wrongly convicted is yet another argument against capital punishment.
So the innocently executed should be zero. By the way in the last few months nobody ever presented a list of them in any of the CP threads... My other analogy would have been outlawing motorcycles. With 4600 or so deadly accidents per year, they are sure killing the innocents like hell. Now bikes can be substituted by cars, so the usual "the rewards are way outwieght the disadvantages" argument doesn't apply.... Hey, here is a case with a 100% good evidence, when the criminal videotapes himself!: From CNN.com 8/13/2008 Killer taped boy's torture, prosecutor says BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- The crime was meticulously planned, the killer choreographing every step from his surveillance of the doomed family to the videotaped torture of one of his youngest victims. Yet something as simple as a locked back door, or fiercer family dogs, might have turned Joseph Edward Duncan III away. Duncan's federal sentencing hearing opened Wednesday with U.S. Attorney Thomas Moss outlining how the convicted pedophile terrorized the Groene family, all because he wanted to "live out his fantasy" and exact revenge on society for perceived wrongs. Duncan pleaded guilty last year to 10 federal charges in the kidnapping of two siblings, ages 8 and 9, and the murder of the older child. The jury will determine whether he should serve life in prison or be executed. Moss told jurors they'd have to watch video footage of the sexual torture of 9-year-old Dylan Groene, filmed shortly before Duncan killed him. Duncan forced 8-year-old Shasta Groene, the sole survivor, to watch the video. He also made her watch as he killed her brother, jurors were told. Duncan, who is representing himself, told the jury Wednesday that most of what Moss said was fair and accurate "up to the point of what occurred at the campground." He said he would testify so he could try to "clarify things." His standby legal counsel, Judy Clarke, has said Duncan doesn't plan to offer any mitigation, such as evidence of his own traumatic childhood. Shasta's videotaped statements to police will tell her story in court. It's not known if she will offer a victim impact statement. Duncan's past is littered with arrests and prison time for crimes ranging from car theft to rape and molestation. He is suspected in the 1996 slayings of two half-sisters from Seattle and is charged with the 1997 killing of a young boy in Riverside County, California. In 2005, he went to Idaho. Duncan broke into the Groenes' Coeur d'Alene home, bludgeoning 13-year-old Slade Groene, his mother, Brenda Groene, and her fiance, Mark McKenzie, before abducting Shasta and Dylan. Duncan has already pleaded guilty in state court for the three murders; the federal case concerns the crimes against Shasta and Dylan. Duncan had researched police investigation procedures and took steps to avoid getting caught, Moss told jurors. He bought too-large tennis shoes at a thrift store so no bloody footprints would lead police to him. He wiped down shotgun shells before loading them so there'd be no fingerprints. He loaded the first shot with BB pellets because he thought he'd have to shoot the family dogs and didn't necessarily want to kill them. He had a video camera, a computer and a GPS device filled with locations he thought would be handy, such as potential campsites, Moss said. He brought with him the framing hammer he used to bludgeon the older victims. On the night of the murders, Duncan crept across a field to the home, using a low-visibility red-bulb flashlight to guide his way. He peered into a window and saw the children sleeping. One of the family dogs saw him and growled, frightening him enough that he retreated to the fence, Moss said. "He made a decision: `If that back door is locked, I'm going to abort,"' Moss said Duncan later told police. When he turned the handle, it opened. Then the terror began. The dogs scurried away when they saw Duncan's gun, Moss said. Duncan bound the family, took the youngest children outside and beat the others to death. Then he drove away with Dylan and Shasta, making sure they knew he had killed their relatives as he headed into the Montana wilderness. The trio camped for several weeks at the end of a remote road. When Duncan left the camp, he tied the children to a tree with a dog chain. On June 22, 2005, Duncan left Shasta at the camp, taking Dylan to a cabin, where he videotaped himself sexually abusing and torturing the boy. "Heinous, cruel and depraved are tough words in the English language, but none of these words ... fully express the outrage of what you will see," Moss told jurors. After they returned to the campsite, the first thing Duncan did was show Shasta the video, Moss said. Then, at some point during the next four days, Shasta heard a gunshot and turned to see Dylan clutching his stomach where he'd been hit. She watched as Duncan walked over to Dylan, held the gun to his head and pulled the trigger. The gun didn't fire, Moss said, so Duncan reloaded and fired again. Duncan wrapped the body in a tarp, threw it on the campfire and let it burn until it was reduced to ashes. He then took Shasta back to Coeur d'Alene, stopping for a meal at a Denny's restaurant, where a waitress recognized the girl and called police. Dylan "deserves the justice that only you can provide," Moss told the jury.
The other thing, you guys always talk theoretically. "There could be an innocent guy executed." Why don't we name some? Also what about the guys who are obviously not innocent as the above mentioned gentleman? I would like to hear some opinions on why he deserve to live although his victims didn't....
this is retarded. you could also suicide from the ferry by jumping under it. bridges also are much more efficient and less costly and are simply needed because they carry much more people and (heavier) vehicles than ferries. people would simply commit suicide from other high buildings.
