mitchellmckain wrote:But that is not a reason at all. You don't seem to understand that the innocent people are the victims and not the murderers.
We are not talking about a death sentence for people where circumstantial evidence suggest that they may have killed someone. We are talking about people where it is absurd to even doubt what they have done and by what they have done, shown no regard for people in the public at large. It is only such people that represent any threat to public safety. So this talk about those who are falsely accused and convicted just doesn't apply.
What are you talking about!?!?!? Innocent people have
been put on death row for YEARS - God forbid some might be or may have been put to death.
I don't think the criminals are innocent, I think that the innocent are innocent.
Innocent people ARE affected negatively by the death penalty. If you want evidence just ask, though I'm sure you will ignore it as well and retort with nothing but your opinions.
I honestly do not understand your point here. You have either totally misunderstood what I meant or have purposefully created a 'straw-man' to destroy.
mitchellmckain wrote:And I don't buy it, because it is absurd. There is something seriously skewed with the premises your so called data is based upon. Why should the set of court trials for someone on death row be so much greater than court trials for someone in prison for life? Is it because people like you keep fighting to push their own personal convictions on other people. Sorry but that kind of blackmail type argument is not one I will listen to. It is basically saying that we should go along with anyone who pushes their opinions enough that it is costing us too much in court costs to oppose them.
Well good thing it wasn't PART OF MY ARGUMENT. It was data I thought was interesting, I specifically said that it wasn't addressed to you and I didn't use it EVER as part of my argument. This of course does not mean that you can not give your retort to it, I would never say that and I don't mean to offend, but I honestly did and do not care what you thought about that set of data because it wasn't useful to me in this discussion, merely something I found interesting. For those same reasons I do not care to defend said data, because it is not worth my time as it doesn't pertain to my argument.
The other data - on the murder rates of states - was what was pertinent to our discussion. The other data, which, by the way, you have ignored, was what I cared about. You can't just 'not buy' the other data, they ARE facts. It isn't hard to tally up the murder rates of states. I can easily provide you with more sets of data that reach the same conclusion as the two I have already posted - one of which was the FEDERAL CONSENSUS and the other of which was provided by the .org site DEDICATED to providing facts about the death penalty. If you ever care to actually reasonably address this data instead of just dismissing it or ignoring it and attacking the OTHER data be my guest.
mitchellmckain wrote:As I said I am not interested in a numbers game. 35% of murders or more go unsolved and that only includes the people who are known to be murdered and not all the people who simply disappear. The people we are talking about would be among those making the greatest effort at avoiding discovery. But I am more than happy to start listing the people who you apparently do not think is worth the extra cost, lets start with the 3 by Bundy:
Kimberly Ann Leech
couldn't find the names of the 2 vacationers killed by John McClusky
These names are difficult to find. There doesn't seem to be any great database of victims. Maybe people want to respect the privacy of their families, and maybe the prisons and government are not very motivated to publish this information either.
I'm not interested in a numbers game either. What I AM interested in is a discussion that is based more upon logic, facts, and data than purely 'gut' thinking.
You are also making me out to be a monster here. How DARE you say I don't believe these people are worth the extra cost? What a completely biased, rude, ignorant and cruel think to say about me. We may have different opinions, but I have yet to insult your person over the issue. Insult my argument, not my person.
Firstly, it's because I care about people that I want to abolish the death penalty. I feel incredibly sorry for any person or persons harmed by a serial murderer and extremely grateful for everyone who escapes. You act as if my not wanting to put them to death means I'm on their side.
And cost!?!? Cost is NOT my issue, AS I HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES. I think more money MUST be spent. On defense, prevention, capture, jailing (etc. etc.) of criminals. Where are you getting this idea that it's about the money for me? Again, you are either misunderstanding or creating a 'straw-man' to destroy.
How is the '35% of murders go unsolved' statistic relevant? We were talking about people who have escaped from maximum security prisons, not about general statistics on murders. I am interested in people who have been convicted, kept in a maximum security prison, and then escaped. That number is very small. Too high, yes, but incredibly small. If we limit it to the last thirty years that number drops even more - by percentage, of course - since prison escapes are becoming less and less likely (let me know if you want data). If we limit that to only federal 'supermax' prisons, that number drops to zero.
If you want to argue opinions all day just let me know. But we won't get anywhere without facts. I do appreciate the 'data' you supplied in your last post - even if it was the only 'data' you had already provided to me. . .
"I feel like I could... like I could... like I could... TAKE ON THE WORLD!!"
- Purple Tentacle