the 100% directionless thread

[Anjel]

Anyone else an INTJ?

and one of my favorites!

First I had to google what that was lol

And I would be the exact opposite.

 

[lightsandsirens5]

And the labor for digging should be cheap (free) too.

Especially in Texas :-D

 

[bigbaldguy]

Why does it cost 2 million? Give me $100 and some IV KCL and ill get the job done.

Actually the lowest number I could find was 2.3 million, the average is actually 2.5 to 5 million per execution. Cost has nothing to do with the actual execution. The costs are tied up with the multiple appeals, and much higher initial prosecution standards that have to be maintained ect.

While I know that you guys are just joking I do find it a little disturbing that there really are people who would volunteer to kill another human being. A human being who is for all intents and purposes no longer a threat to anyone.

Make no mistake executing a criminal has nothing to do with serving the greater good. It is simply vengeance without emotion. It's just something politicians crow about so they can pretend to be tough on crime while they pass laws that make it easier for the rich to steal without risk of punishment.

We are willing to spend millions to see a bad man die but balk at spending a few hundred to see a good man live?

 

[lightsandsirens5]

Anyone else an INTJ?

and one of my favorites!

Nope....ISFJ.

 

[JPINFV]

$10.80. Keep the ten. Ought-six is about .80/round.

Very cheap.

I thought that this was a gun free thread... you know... with the rails and such.

 

[JPINFV]

While I know that you guys are just joking I do find it a little disturbing that there really are people who would volunteer to kill another human being. A human being who is for all intents and purposes no longer a threat to anyone.

The only way a high security prisoner (whom I'm just going to make the assumption that anyone who has committed a capital offense is going to be) is only not a threat if they live in a supermax type box. Living in a box with little to no human contact is much more cruel than a bullet to the head. A life isn't nearly as important as being able to live.

Make no mistake executing a criminal has nothing to do with serving the greater good. It is simply vengeance without emotion. It's just something politicians crow about so they can pretend to be tough on crime while they pass laws that make it easier for the rich to steal without risk of punishment.

Like sex offender lists and restrictions?

 

[JPINFV]

I really hate my school at times. By all means, e-mail me at 4:30 2 days before my 2pm Livescan (finger print/background check) appointment to let me know. Not that it matters that Friday is the second day of night shifts for my team, so it's like giving me a 2am appointment with basically a day to see if they can change it.

 

[MexDefender]

Anyone else an INTJ?

INTJ here

 

[Achilles]

The only way a high security prisoner (whom I'm just going to make the assumption that anyone who has committed a capital offense is going to be) is only not a threat if they live in a supermax type box.

So like James Holmes?

 

[shfd739]

Hmm. Been thinking over the weekend. Maybe it's time to move on from medicine and Instead of nursing look at engineering. I'm really a gear head at heart.

 

[Aidey]

The only way a high security prisoner (whom I'm just going to make the assumption that anyone who has committed a capital offense is going to be) is only not a threat if they live in a supermax type box. Living in a box with little to no human contact is much more cruel than a bullet to the head. A life isn't nearly as important as being able to live.


Like sex offender lists and restrictions?

The problem with your statement is that is assumes that everyone on "death row" is guilty of whatever crime they were convicted of. A high enough % of convictions have been overturned based on reevaluated evidence that I'm starting to think all capital convictions should be examined before any more executions. Now, you could make the argument that anyone who has spent 15-20 years in prison could be a threat simply based off the affects of prison culture.

 

[Jambi]

The problem with your statement is that is assumes that everyone on "death row" is guilty of whatever crime they were convicted of. A high enough % of convictions have been overturned based on reevaluated evidence that I'm starting to think all capital convictions should be examined before any more executions. Now, you could make the argument that anyone who has spent 15-20 years in prison could be a threat simply based off the affects of prison culture.

What's the percentage I wonder? I'd honestly be okay with a per capita error rate of 100 (per 100k).

 

[bigbaldguy]

. Living in a box with little to no human contact is much more cruel than a bullet to the head. A life isn't nearly as important as being able to live.


Like sex offender lists and restrictions?

Exactly so why do we claim execution is a punishment if it's the easy way out?

The costs I quoted were for a supermax facility. No prisoner has ever escaped a super max facility. I should have said that the prisoner is no longer a threat to the public. My bad.

Ever looked up studies on the effectiveness of sex offender lists and restrictions? They look a lot like the studies done on the effectiveness of execution as a deterrent to crime.

I'm not against executions on moral grounds, although I do think it should be limited to very few instances. I'm saying that it doesn't work for its claimed benefits. It does not save money, it does not make us safer. The only reason it exists is so politicians can crow about it. If someone I love was killed I would want the person dead and yes I would probably feel better if the person was executed, but when has public policy been about making one person or one family feel better? Public policy is about the public and spending millions to kill someone makes zero sense when we can't be bothered to hire more police because our taxes might go up 200 dollars a year.

 

[bigbaldguy]

What's the percentage I wonder? I'd honestly be okay with a per capita error rate of 100 (per 100k).

I doubt you'd feel that way if any of those 100 were your family.

Your still missing the point. This doesn't have to be a moral issue. Even if you believe in a kill them all let god sort them out mentality the fact that these executions are financially irresponsible and ineffective for their stated purpose is enough to make them a bad idea.

Executions are just one distraction used by politicians. They are a big bright tennis ball waved in the dogs face. We go bounding after the ball with our tails wagging while we're robbed blind.

STOP CHASING THE DAMN BALL PEOPLE!

 

[JPINFV]

Ever looked up studies on the effectiveness of sex offender lists and restrictions? They look a lot like the studies done on the effectiveness of execution as a deterrent to crime.

[edit] I just realized that you would probably agree with this analysis on sex offenders, but it's worth leaving up anyways.[/edit]

Do they include the people who are "sex offenders" for public urination?

Are we really so afraid of 14 year olds who decide to moon someone that we must brand them for life?

Or the 17 year old who gets fellatio from his 15 year old girl friend... when intercourse would fall under a "Romeo or Juliet" exemption.

Furthermore, if someone is so dangerous that they have to be limited to essentially living under a bridge, shouldn't they still be in jail?


As long as horny teenagers (which, mind you, are often prosecuted only if they're male. Why isn't the 15 year old girl guilty of molesting the 17 year old boy? Both are under age.) or kids playing around are "sex offenders," the term "sex offender" is meaningless.

If sex offenders are so dangerous that the only place in society for them to live is under a bridge like a troll, then they should be in jail, not out in public.

Unfortunately, since the term "sex offender" is a political third rail, the only change will be more restrictions and a broader net to catch them with.

 

[Jambi]

I doubt you'd feel that way if any of those 100 were your family.

Understood, but a an error rate of 0.001% is still acceptable.

Your still missing the point. This doesn't have to be a moral issue. Even if you believe in a kill them all let god sort them out mentality the fact that these executions are financially irresponsible and ineffective for their stated purpose is enough to make them a bad idea.

Oh I got your point. I also fall on the same side of the fence as you do because of the financial aspect, but such a low error rate is still acceptable, provided that it really is that low.

 

[bigbaldguy]

[edit] I just realized that you would probably agree with this analysis on sex offenders, but it's worth leaving up anyways.[/edit]

Do they include the people who are "sex offenders" for public urination?

Are we really so afraid of 14 year olds who decide to moon someone that we must brand them for life?

Or the 17 year old who gets fellatio from his 15 year old girl friend... when intercourse would fall under a "Romeo or Juliet" exemption.

Furthermore, if someone is so dangerous that they have to be limited to essentially living under a bridge, shouldn't they still be in jail?


As long as horny teenagers (which, mind you, are often prosecuted only if they're male. Why isn't the 15 year old girl guilty of molesting the 17 year old boy? Both are under age.) or kids playing around are "sex offenders," the term "sex offender" is meaningless.

If sex offenders are so dangerous that the only place in society for them to live is under a bridge like a troll, then they should be in jail, not out in public.

Unfortunately, since the term "sex offender" is a political third rail, the only change will be more restrictions and a broader net to catch them with.

So you agree that the current system for "sex offenders" is a broken system that doesn't work and costs more to society than it gives?

Executions are the same thing in my opinion. It is a basic idea that has some good logic in it. Kill bad people so they never hurt anyone again, that gets twisted and turned until it is meaningless.

Edit: sorry just saw your edit what else can we talk about and then agree on this is fun.

 

[VFlutter]

I doubt you'd feel that way if any of those 100 were your family.

No offense to you personaly but I really hate that argument. It is an attempt to create a personal emotional bias against a situation that should be made without biased. It is human nature to want to protect your loved ones and have the best outcome for them which skews judgement but that in no way weakens an argument

If a person does X crime then they deserve Y punishment. That should apply to everyone regardless of your relationship with them. Just because you wouldn't want your family member to receive that punishment does not mean that the rule does not apply

 

[Jon]

I get 375miles per tank.

Which is 12 gallons

What are you driving?


And I've been toying with a diesel VW... I'm looking at a job where I'd be commuting 50 miles 1-way. My 1997 Explorer is going to get very expensive very quickly.

 

[Aidey]

No offense to you personaly but I really hate that argument. It is an attempt to create a personal emotional bias against a situation that should be made without biased. It is human nature to want to protect your loved ones and have the best outcome for them which skews judgement but that in no way weakens an argument

If a person does X crime then they deserve Y punishment. That should apply to everyone regardless of your relationship with them. Just because you wouldn't want your family member to receive that punishment does not mean that the rule does not apply

He isn't arguing against a family member receiving a certain punishment, he is arguing that if your family member is falsely convicted of something you are not going to be blase about false conviction rates.