DINDU NUFFIN

HE A GOO BOI

What I always find peculiar about these recent strings of rape accusations is that they always happen 20/30+ years later, when the accused are in high positions of wealth and power.

Hm, very strange.

Whenever they want to be recognised. I couldn't really give a fuck. Just don't throw a temper tantrum when I accidentally abdicate the gender you identify as due to your appearance.

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on April 21, 2015, 03:40:04 AM

Quote from: challengerX on April 21, 2015, 03:38:49 AM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on April 21, 2015, 03:37:29 AM

Quote from: challengerX on April 21, 2015, 03:36:13 AM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on April 21, 2015, 03:30:17 AM

Quote from: challengerX on April 21, 2015, 03:29:03 AM

Those studies are bullshit. They always have been. Same with the "happiest country" shit.

What would it take for them to not be bullshit then?

*eagerly awaits response cccccx*

To not exist.

What if they put the US as #1 in everything? Would they not be bullshit then?

They still would be. I'm not going to trust people to be unbiased or research any of this properly.

These "studies" have about as much credibility to me as an online IQ test.

They aren't made by edgy 17-year olds to start with, so that gives them more credibility right there. Lol.

But they are made by ignorant, biased people who think of themselves as researchers when they don't even have real jobs.

Are you saying the UN aren't real researchers?

lol

and u give me shit for browsing /tv/

cuck

Quote from: Madman Mordo on April 20, 2015, 09:34:41 AM

Quote from: Lemön | Queen of Anal on April 20, 2015, 09:24:29 AM

He also jerks his dick over the thought of the UK being the best nation and hates on everything that's American.

I remember when he tried to justify having sex with 14 year olds because the cavemen used to do it or something.

lmao

The Japs got their AoC at 13 and they're well off, maybe he has a point.

Yeah but they're degenerate gooks though.

Okay, so this is what you should have quoted initially. It's called a citation. They're really neat. Don't link a long article and get indignant when I repeatedly ask you to pull out specific information you're using in an argument.

I apologize. I (incorrectly) assumed you would have had the patience to take a minute or two out of your day to skim through an article (and in the case of my second link, pretty much a page or two) to at least signify a semblance of effort in trying to understand my position.

I'll keep it in mind next time I link you to empirical evidence.

Anyways, that citation doesn't say anything about a $90,000 cost above a typical life sentence, it says it costs an additional $90,000 each. How much did it cost to house an inmate for life in 1978? This is what I'm talking about, an actual comparison. What you've linked is not useful, and it's obscenely outdated.

It's roughly 50k after a few quick google scans.

You're asking me to relate cost to numerous other consequences, which is absurd. The cost of the sentence has nothing to do with the number of innocent people sentenced to death, nor the effect of deterrence.

You said cost is irrelevant to the viability of punishment, and I asked why not. Stop dancing around the question.

I ignored the first link in that last post because, for what I believe is the fifth time in this thread, I'm telling you that I am not, nor have I ever, contested the fact that death penalty cases cost more than life sentence cases. I'm not ignoring sections of the links, I'm repeatedly asking you to make an argument instead of copying and pasting a link from Google and telling me to interpret yourself, as if it's my responsibility to make your argument for you. Regardless, you repeatedly come back to points that I have time and time against told you are irrelevant to our discussion.

You asked me to provide evidence for incarceration costs, and I did. Don't throw your toys out the pram when I actually prove something that goes against your contentions.

You've made no compelling argument for why Tsarnaev should not be executed

That's because it isn't the argument I'm even positing.

I'm suggesting that the Death Penalty is a horribly inefficient means of punishment in our judicial system, and if it means seeing Tsarnaev remain alive for the rest of his life, then so be it.

except that sometimes innocent people are sentences to death and it may or may not cost more than a life sentence, which in the order of magnitude of millions of dollars is basically irrelevant. The guy bombed a marathon and maimed hundreds of people, and I believe among the available punishments, death is the most appropriate. Maybe someday in the future the death sentence will be revoked entirely; I hope we see that someday. But right now, for this case, I think he deserves to die.

All I got from this paragraph is that you want to maintain the death penalty simply for one guy.

Interpret it how you will, but I'm heading to bed and I probably won't continue this discussion because we seem to be talking about two separate facets of the issue, and we've repeated the same posts three times now.

No doubt through your inability to interpret my position.

I don't agree with this. In a general sense we set punishments to persuade people from doing bad things, but in a courtroom setting where the punishment has clearly failed to deter an action, then the sole point of it is to punish. Life in prison clearly didn't deter the bombing, so should we be throwing it out, too?

No, but the certainty of crime holds more weight than the severity of the crime.

There's always going to be crime, and yes, there should always be punishment attached as a consequence. I'd like to think punishment should do more than just get back at bad people who do bad things, however. Prevention is just as important as retribution/justice, and the death penalty only seems to fulfill the latter.

I did, and I looked in your site. You made the claim that death penalty incarceration costs more than life in prison and brief search through it yielded nothing of the sort.

Convenient how you elected to ignore my first link though (in which I directed you to the information being conveyed).

As I already stated at least three times in this conversation, I don't disagree that costs of death penalty trials cost more; I don't need more links for that. I would prefer links showing costs of incarceration in a comparison, which your second link doesn't do.

Literally three scrolls down:

Costs of Incarceration: $1 billion since 1978:

An official within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation estimated that housing death row inmates costs California an additional $90,000 annually per inmate. Accounting for inflation and the number of inmates on death row each year since 1978, this estimate would indicate that CA has spent an additional $1.02 billion in housing death row inmates since 1978.

Again, it aids to the discussion if you actually read my links.

And beyond that, I've said numerous times that the relative cost of a viable sentence shouldn't factor into the decision to carry it out, since that has already been weighed by the legislature.

And again I ask you, why not, since it has utterly failed as a deterrence, has had innocent people killed, and has cost the taxpayer more in both incarceration and conviction?

For the third time, you can argue with me all day about costs

If you stop cherrypicking my posts and electing to ignore sections of my links, you'll notice that I have argued against the death penalty for more than just the rationality of cost.

Mordo, obviously the death penalty system is flawed and inefficient, but that's largely due to the need for certainty. In this case, there's no question Tsarnaev is guilty. We're not talking about solitary confinement, and we're not talking about the death penalty as a deterrent; I think the name itself exposes it as primarily a punishment instead of a deterrent.

The guy is responsible for several deaths and hundreds of maimed victims. If the court rules that he is to be sentenced to death, I'll support that, even in light of potentially higher costs, though the preponderance of what I've seen is that the cost for cases are higher, but often exclude cost of incarceration, and so far you've done nothing but link sites without actually presenting facts from those sites. I agree that death penalties cost more typically; I've argued that on this site. I don't agree with the death penalty as a punishment for average crimes including murder and rape. In this case, the case of terrorism resulting in hundreds of casualties, I would agree with it. We can talk about the fallacies of the current system all you want, and I'm not going to argue against those. This case is exceptional to those discussions, to me.

The crux of what a punishment attempts to do is essentially deterrence, though. If you support something so abominably inefficient in what it sets out to do then I really don't know what to say to you.

And FYI, my recent links have directed you to the facts. It helps if you read my previous post.

"Someone somewhere changed his viewpoint because of what he saw"

Okay? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Abortion is always going to be a thing, whether it's legalised or not. Hell, the removal of the fetus can be traced back to Ancient Egypt.

Even if it so deeply offends your delicate sensibilities, the lesser of two evils at this point is to maintain the legality of safe, consensual and medically sound abortions.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on April 19, 2015, 07:57:43 PM

There is no evidence to suggest that the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent though.

Not to mention the astronomical costs the taxpayer has to bear the brunt of to try and get someone convicted for the death penalty. Bureaucracy isn't cheap funnily enough.

It's about punishment, not deterrent. I think Tsarnaev deserves to be executed for his participation in the bombing.

As for cost, while the trial for the death penalty is more expensive than a trial for life in prison, when you factor in the actual cost of incarcerating someone for life, it far exceeds that of the trial.

Regardless, justice shouldn't be meted out based on cost.

Losing basic liberties is punishment enough. If there was evidence that proved capital punishment kept criminality down, I'd be in support of it. Having the state execute someone because muh justice isn't good enough for me, however. Not to mention over 150 innocent people have died on death row.

Incorrect. Maintaining death row prisoners costs the taxpayer $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in the general population.

P O T T E R Y
O
T
T
E
R
Y

Scenario 1: No to both questions.

Scenario 2: As much as it begrudges me to say, neither. The state should take custody of the child, as clearly neither parent is capable of raising a child to adequate standards (the father never intended to conceive a child, and the mother is clearly a psychopath, as are all rapists regardless of gender). Although seeing as how skewed the judicial system is towards women, I doubt this would be a realistic scenario.

Holy shit OP I think you're trolling because you're a walking /tv/ meme but people who say that and mean it are retarded.

I have no idea what your illiterate ass just said.