Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #46  
Old 07-16-2011, 04:28 AM
The Jr Trainer's Avatar
The Jr Trainer Offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 8,426
Send a message via AIM to The Jr Trainer Send a message via MSN to The Jr Trainer Send a message via Yahoo to The Jr Trainer Send a message via Skype™ to The Jr Trainer
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Octopus Babies
Against


Quote:
Originally Posted by TED
]Before I continue, I would like to share some flight statistics regarding plane safety. Statistically, flying has been proven to be the safest form of travel. Of all the airlines in the world, the following statistics come from the years 1985 – 2009.
All right. If its already the safest form of travel why do we need to heighten the security that is already top notch? There's no reason to waste money on an unnecessary form of security when the current security is already bringing us the best way to travel without harm.

Quote:
The odds of being on a plane where there is an accident on the one of top 25 airlines with the best accident rates are 1 in 5.4 million. The odds of being killed on a plane on one of the top 25 airlines with the best accident rates are 1 in 9.2 million.
What does this have to do with body scanners?

Quote:
Secondly, statistics show that only 9% of all fatal accidents on planes were due to sabotage. In fact the last time there was ever a hijacking on a plane resulting in fatalities anywhere in the world according to these statistics was on the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The last two there were sabotage attacks or explosive device attacks that resulted in fatalities were in Russia in 2004 and in China in 2002.
Once again, all of this data is before the body scanners became popular throughout the airports in the world... so why do we need to waste our resources on them?

Quote:
Now clearly these safety measures through body scans have people in fear that others may obtain these full body scans and either look at them or redistribute them. What you probably don’t know is that these x-ray scanned photos reveal is nothing more than a naked ghost-like figure. There are no distinguishable characteristics in these scans and it’s not like the security guards sitting behind these monitors look at who’s about to go in and go gaga over a cloudy figure of somebody they’ll never see again.
It is still an invasion of privacy - not everyone is comfortable with people seeing their naked body. Not everyone has the confidence of an Abercrombie model, some people like to keep their personal parts to themselves. That should be totally understandable and understood by the governments that are choosing to implement the machines into their airports.

Quote:
They don’t have time to look at who’s about to walk by with the mass amount of passengers waiting to move through the long, congested line. What look for are weapons or drugs. And they actually do a magnificent job at detecting these said items whether they’re attached to the person’s body or inside the person’s luggage.
The thing is, our current security does a terrific job at detecting anything that could cause harm to passengers already. There is also one glaring weakness to the fully body scanners that terrorists can easily take advantage of.

According to Ben Wallace, the UK Conservative MP, tests showed that the new scanners failed to detect a variety of low-density materials, including, plastic, chemicals and liquids. The waves pass through these materials, hitting the body and then bouncing back, revealing only the underlying skin.

Since this is rather public knowledge, terrorists can easily use this in such a way too cause the maximum amount of damage they want.

http://www.dailytech.com/New+Full+Bo...ticle17279.htm

What is stopping terrorists from using only liquid explosives? Nothing. If they can get their hands on it, and I'm assuming if they want it bad enough they will, they can blow up all the planes they want or whatever you choose to do with the explosive devices.

If body scanners have to be placed into airport then they should only be used on persons that are suspected to be carrying something that could cause harm to others. For example, if the security checker beeps as they walk through it they have to be body scanned and patted down to ensure the safety of other passengers.

I dislike the idea that everyone has to go through a body scanner. It is demoralizing for some people to have to be forcefully scanned and allow others to see their naked body, however ghostly it looks; and it almost criminalizes every passenger as their suspected to be doing something wrong.
__________________

Last edited by The Jr Trainer; 07-16-2011 at 04:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-16-2011, 05:04 AM
TheEvilDookie's Avatar
TheEvilDookie Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,983
Send a message via AIM to TheEvilDookie Send a message via MSN to TheEvilDookie Send a message via Skype™ to TheEvilDookie
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jr Trainer View Post
Octopus Babies
Against



All right. If its already the safest form of travel why do we need to heighten the security that is already top notch? There's no reason to waste money on an unnecessary form of security when the current security is already bringing us the best way to travel without harm.
Because technology is always advancing and it becomes available to the terrorists as well. Security always needs to be up to date or else we'll be in danger of others finding leaks in security in ways we don't wish to ever see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr
What does this have to do with body scanners?
Low chance of being killed -> Lower chance of being killed by sabotage/hijacking -> These low chances are because of the great security we've developed. Anything I posted that may not look relevant was to support another argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr
Once again, all of this data is before the body scanners became popular throughout the airports in the world... so why do we need to waste our resources on them?
Again, it's so we can keep up with more advanced technology. The higher chance of catching a criminal attempting to smuggle a bomb or a gun, the better, right?

Quote:
It is still an invasion of privacy - not everyone is comfortable with people seeing their naked body. Not everyone has the confidence of an Abercrombie model, some people like to keep their personal parts to themselves. That should be totally understandable and understood by the governments that are choosing to implement the machines into their airports.
The government has been invading our privacy for decades. With the internet and social networking, it even makes it easier. It's just that people notice that their privacy is being "invaded" at the airports because they have the huge hunk of metal that they have to walk through. Now I put invade in quotes because like I said, there is nothing you can really notice or recognize about a person. No one's judging anyone with these scans. It's all about the security with these over the top measures of safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr
The thing is, our current security does a terrific job at detecting anything that could cause harm to passengers already. There is also one glaring weakness to the fully body scanners that terrorists can easily take advantage of.

According to Ben Wallace, the UK Conservative MP, tests showed that the new scanners failed to detect a variety of low-density materials, including, plastic, chemicals and liquids. The waves pass through these materials, hitting the body and then bouncing back, revealing only the underlying skin.

Since this is rather public knowledge, terrorists can easily use this in such a way too cause the maximum amount of damage they want.

http://www.dailytech.com/New+Full+Bo...ticle17279.htm

What is stopping terrorists from using only liquid explosives? Nothing. If they can get their hands on it, and I'm assuming if they want it bad enough they will, they can blow up all the planes they want or whatever you choose to do with the explosive devices.

If body scanners have to be placed into airport then they should only be used on persons that are suspected to be carrying something that could cause harm to others. For example, if the security checker beeps as they walk through it they have to be body scanned and patted down to ensure the safety of other passengers.
And this brings up again my point about how if we don't keep up with today's technology, the terrorist organizations will always be ahead of us. They used to sabotage the flights with strapped on bombs or guns. And so we developed the type of scanners that are now under controversy. If we are to defeat this new threat of liquid chemicals to create bombs, then we are most likely going to have to create a new type of scanner that detects properties that are specific to just the chemicals. And while it may involve a slightly more increased "invasion" of privacy, it's going to be worth it because death is the last thing you want coming from a plane right?

Quote:
I dislike the idea that everyone has to go through a body scanner. It is demoralizing for some people to have to be forcefully scanned and allow others to see their naked body, however ghostly it looks; and it almost criminalizes every passenger as their suspected to be doing something wrong.
If we make it so only some people go through the scanner, then we look like judgmental racists and discriminators. And then guess what: it would be those who look innocent enough to not have to go through the scanners that turn into the next terrorists. This form of security is also for equality and not just criminalization. I don't think the passengers feel like they've done something wrong just because they have to be scanned. I would really hope that they would feel like they understand the reasons behind having them in the first place. And you have to wonder, if someone at the airport refuses to go through the scanner because of an invasion of privacy, don't you think that person would be even more suspicious? I sure would. I would feel like he/she is hiding something (and no I don't mean hiding his/her body from being seen).
__________________


^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987

Last edited by TheEvilDookie; 07-16-2011 at 05:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-16-2011, 09:52 PM
The Jr Trainer's Avatar
The Jr Trainer Offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 8,426
Send a message via AIM to The Jr Trainer Send a message via MSN to The Jr Trainer Send a message via Yahoo to The Jr Trainer Send a message via Skype™ to The Jr Trainer
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEvilDookie View Post
Because technology is always advancing and it becomes available to the terrorists as well. Security always needs to be up to date or else we'll be in danger of others finding leaks in security in ways we don't wish to ever see.
Fair enough. But what is the point of adding in this new wave of technology if it doesn't necessarily improve our protection from the current technology. If this new technology didn't have any glaring holes, such as the one I mentioned in my last post, then I wouldn't see a problem with it, even if it did invade out privacy - because I know I would be safe 100% of the time. The fact that it isn't a sure thing makes me rather iffy on being x-rayed without consent.

Quote:
And this brings up again my point about how if we don't keep up with today's technology, the terrorist organizations will always be ahead of us. They used to sabotage the flights with strapped on bombs or guns. And so we developed the type of scanners that are now under controversy. If we are to defeat this new threat of liquid chemicals to create bombs, then we are most likely going to have to create a new type of scanner that detects properties that are specific to just the chemicals. And while it may involve a slightly more increased "invasion" of privacy, it's going to be worth it because death is the last thing you want coming from a plane right?
We should always be ahead of terrorist organizations. We have a considerable amount of resources that they do not have or cannot get as easily as we can. The fact that the scanners aren't fully protective is a problem.


Quote:
If we make it so only some people go through the scanner, then we look like judgmental racists and discriminators. And then guess what: it would be those who look innocent enough to not have to go through the scanners that turn into the next terrorists. This form of security is also for equality and not just criminalization. I don't think the passengers feel like they've done something wrong just because they have to be scanned. I would really hope that they would feel like they understand the reasons behind having them in the first place.
I suppose I worded that wrong. I meant if they went through the 'traditional' metal detectors and they beeped, or if something suspicious was in their carry on baggage, only then would they have to go through the body scanners.

Quote:
And you have to wonder, if someone at the airport refuses to go through the scanner because of an invasion of privacy, don't you think that person would be even more suspicious? I sure would. I would feel like he/she is hiding something (and no I don't mean hiding his/her body from being seen).
Sure, maybe it would make you look suspicious, but not everyone wants to reveal themselves to strangers. It is just part of reality.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-16-2011, 10:20 PM
TheEvilDookie's Avatar
TheEvilDookie Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,983
Send a message via AIM to TheEvilDookie Send a message via MSN to TheEvilDookie Send a message via Skype™ to TheEvilDookie
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jr Trainer View Post
Fair enough. But what is the point of adding in this new wave of technology if it doesn't necessarily improve our protection from the current technology. If this new technology didn't have any glaring holes, such as the one I mentioned in my last post, then I wouldn't see a problem with it, even if it did invade out privacy - because I know I would be safe 100% of the time. The fact that it isn't a sure thing makes me rather iffy on being x-rayed without consent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jr
We should always be ahead of terrorist organizations. We have a considerable amount of resources that they do not have or cannot get as easily as we can. The fact that the scanners aren't fully protective is a problem.
Yeah you're right, we should be ahead of them on technology. But here's the thing: It's much easier to make something explosive than it is to develop something that detects it. The scientific aspect of these scanners is that they scan for highly specific properties in guns and bombs that are not found within every day items of apparel of within humans. I mean I'm no bomb expert, but with the simplistic materials that some people to use home made bombs, it becomes very difficult to detect everything that can be used to make a bomb such as liquid chemicals.
__________________


^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-17-2011, 02:38 AM
The Jr Trainer's Avatar
The Jr Trainer Offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 8,426
Send a message via AIM to The Jr Trainer Send a message via MSN to The Jr Trainer Send a message via Yahoo to The Jr Trainer Send a message via Skype™ to The Jr Trainer
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEvilDookie View Post
Yeah you're right, we should be ahead of them on technology. But here's the thing: It's much easier to make something explosive than it is to develop something that detects it. The scientific aspect of these scanners is that they scan for highly specific properties in guns and bombs that are not found within every day items of apparel of within humans. I mean I'm no bomb expert, but with the simplistic materials that some people to use home made bombs, it becomes very difficult to detect everything that can be used to make a bomb such as liquid chemicals.
Considering the 2006 Transatlantic Aircraft Plot you would think that our country and countries around the world would take liquid explosives, along with other things that can cause great harm in airports/aircrafts, seriously and take measures to make sure they don't get past airport security. It is almost like the manufacturer didn't even think about lesser used ways that terrorists can perform acts of terrorism.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-17-2011, 08:20 AM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jr Trainer View Post
Considering the 2006 Transatlantic Aircraft Plot you would think that our country and countries around the world would take liquid explosives, along with other things that can cause great harm in airports/aircrafts, seriously and take measures to make sure they don't get past airport security. It is almost like the manufacturer didn't even think about lesser used ways that terrorists can perform acts of terrorism.
If I remember correctly, my 5th Grade teacher went to China and when she was returning to the airport, they wouldn't let her keep a snow globe with a couple of ounces of water in it. She had to go through and sign a bunch of papers. Although, that was around '09, so I'm not sure if they had these machines that see though clothing, but even back then they were strict on liquids.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-17-2011, 09:45 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,469
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Debate is closed.

For: TheEvilDookie earns a point to team Octopus Babies
Against: The Jr Trainer earns a point to team Octopus Babies
And Octopus Babies gets a collective 2 points because... well, look at the other two points.

And now for something completely different.

Topic 4: Less immediately relevant than I'd like, but, the death penalty. I'm in too big a rush to make some big spiel about the topic, so, should the death penalty be used for serious crimes, or is it too ethically unfeasible?
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-20-2011, 03:14 AM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fedora View Post
Debate is closed.

For: TheEvilDookie earns a point to team Octopus Babies
Against: The Jr Trainer earns a point to team Octopus Babies
And Octopus Babies gets a collective 2 points because... well, look at the other two points.

And now for something completely different.

Topic 4: Less immediately relevant than I'd like, but, the death penalty. I'm in too big a rush to make some big spiel about the topic, so, should the death penalty be used for serious crimes, or is it too ethically unfeasible?
No, the penalty comes on a little strong, for such a serious crime, why not make them suffer the rest of their life in Prison? Giving the Death Penalty seems like they are getting out of it, and it devastates their loved ones which are the ones who didn't do anything.

So it only makes since for Life Sentancing or 30-50 Year Sentancing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-22-2011, 05:50 AM
TheEvilDookie's Avatar
TheEvilDookie Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,983
Send a message via AIM to TheEvilDookie Send a message via MSN to TheEvilDookie Send a message via Skype™ to TheEvilDookie
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Oh gosh this was a tough decision for me. Honestly, the only thing that I care about when arguing over the death penalty vs life in prison is how much it would cost. And because of what the statistics have shown, I feel obligated to say no to the death penalty despite if the convicted was a murderer. ... (However, if the person here we're talking about is or has been a threat to national security, then that's another story) ...

Now most people get confused about which costs the state more when deciding the death penalty or not. The most sensible answer would be that the death penalty is cheaper than a life in prison sentence. And I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that feel this way. Sadly though, this is not the case. The part that gets ignored is the costs for the judicial process to take place. You need to completely prove that the accused is guilty which can be a long and frustrating process simply because there may not be much evidence. Long story short here, the case costs the state a lot because of the attorneys involved and the time that it takes for the case to unfold. More statistics regarding money involved in a capital case can be looked at in the link below.

Now, to stray off from my previous points, when it comes down to ethics, there are a few things to consider.
1: How serious exactly was this crime? Are the charges something like a speeding driver that loses control and kills another driver, was it something like killing somebody out of self defense, or was it something like planning out the murder of a family of four?
2: Would this person actually be happier with his/her life in jail or in the real world? There are some messed up people out there that would be more than happy to be fed meals daily (no matter how gross), and hang out with people of his/her own kind. So would a life sentence be doing a favor to the criminal? Do we even care about how the offender feels or is it all about removing this person from the public sector?
But every state is different. Texas, for example, will gladly use the death penalty for serious capital crimes. And you know what, I say if they can make it a speedy trial without much costs for the state to pay the attorney, then more power to em because that's a good job saving money. However, they're the only state like that. The others are wasting money on each case and it isn't even becoming a matter of ethics anymore. If the state executes a convict, then maybe friends and family will care, but that's about it. Those protestors fighting against the death penalty do it to save lives of other humans without any regard to the financial benefit.

Again, this was a tough decision for me. I'mma have to go with against the death penalty though. Sooo, yeah.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
__________________


^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987

Last edited by TheEvilDookie; 07-22-2011 at 06:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-22-2011, 02:36 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Armada
Pro-Capital Punishment

Sorry, Dookie, but the death penalty is not more expensive than life in prison. While the up-front costs for the death penalty is undoubtedly greater, over the course of a prisoner's life (obviously depending on his age), the cost of life imprisonment becomes much greater than that of an execution. In addition, many of those who are accused of crimes worthy of the death penalty plead guilty in order to avoid the death penalty, thus avoiding court costs altogether, making the death penalty a cost, time, and effort-saving tool in the hands of prosecutors in plea bargaining even if it is never used.

Quote:
Cost of Life Without Parole: Cases
Equivalent To Death Penalty Cases
1. $34,200/year (1) for 50 years (2), at a 2% (3) annual cost increase, plus $75,000 (4) for trial & appeals = $3.01 million
2. Same, except 3% (3) = $4.04 million
3. Same, except 4% (3) = $5.53 million

Cost of Death Penalty Cases
1. $60,000/year (1) for 6 years (5), at a 2% (3) annual cost increase, plus $1.5 million (4) for trial & appeals = $1.88 million
2. Same, except 3% (3) = $1.89 million
3. Same, except 4% (3) = $1.91 million
(ignore the numbers in parentheses, they are citations and addendums in the article)

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dp.html

Quote:
1: How serious exactly was this crime? Are the charges something like a speeding driver that loses control and kills another driver, was it something like killing somebody out of self defense, or was it something like planning out the murder of a family of four?
This really isn't an issue, no state would ever sentence someone to the death penalty for a traffic accident or self-defense. The last time anyone was executed for anything other than the highest grade of murder was 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital...tal_punishment

Quote:
2: Would this person actually be happier with his/her life in jail or in the real world? There are some messed up people out there that would be more than happy to be fed meals daily (no matter how gross), and hang out with people of his/her own kind. So would a life sentence be doing a favor to the criminal? Do we even care about how the offender feels or is it all about removing this person from the public sector?
Sorry, but the only people that actually enjoy jail are the desperately poor, because they can't get services like medical care or even food any other way. Nobody enjoys having their freedom taken away permanently, least of all murderers. Also, the criminal justice system is competent enough to detect when the intent of a murder is to go to jail (which, incidentally, I cannot find a single case thereof so this entire issue may be totally irrelevant).
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-23-2011, 12:20 AM
Iso's Avatar
Iso Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 62
Send a message via AIM to Iso
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Octopus Babies, Pro Death Penalty

---

"I don't want to die, I kid you not, ((but)) I deserve, certainly, the most extreme punishment society has."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz1SsdkUTy9

Those are the words of Ted Bundy; he killed over 30 people, and raped many of his victims. Even he thinks he deserves the death penalty.

The death penalty is extremely efficient, but it is not perfect yet. How is it efficient? It serves justice. When someone is murdered, several people are affected. Parents, siblings, and friends suffer enormous grief. Many will never be at ease until proper justice has taken place, and to them, lifetime imprisonment can not be enough. Can you imagine the feeling, knowing the person that slayed your mother is still living a sustainable life in prison? Some will never receive closure until their family's murderer is eliminated.

The only reason the death penalty is so costly in comparison to lifetime imprisonment is because of court fees. However, this is not a fault of the death penalty, but the court system. It is possible to streamline the court process so it actually costs less by creating less court appearances. Texas has figured out how to do this quite well.

The death penalty is not only a punishment, but it is also a deterrent. If a criminal fears his own life, then he is less likely to kill. Imagine what it would be like if every time someone in the world did something that deserved the death penalty, the murderer died immediately. This is what the death penalty tries to emulate. However, with the current inefficient system, a criminal may think he is able to wiggle his way out of the claws of justice.

Some might say the death penalty is intrinsically wrong and cruel. They might say it's not civilized. However, someone else can just as well say it's wrong a person can rape and murder several people and still be able to breathe. The death penalty is nowhere near barbaric either. You don't put someone in a guillotine or make them suffer. Lethal injection is the least painful method and is widely used.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEvilDookie View Post
Now most people get confused about which costs the state more when deciding the death penalty or not. The most sensible answer would be that the death penalty is cheaper than a life in prison sentence. And I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that feel this way. Sadly though, this is not the case. The part that gets ignored is the costs for the judicial process to take place. You need to completely prove that the accused is guilty which can be a long and frustrating process simply because there may not be much evidence. Long story short here, the case costs the state a lot because of the attorneys involved and the time that it takes for the case to unfold. More statistics regarding money involved in a capital case can be looked at in the link below.
First, there should be no price on the cost of justice. Second, the only reason it is so costly is because of the amount of court appearances. Like I said before, the process can be improved to be more streamlined and require less court appearances.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEvilDookie View Post
[INDENT]1: How serious exactly was this crime? Are the charges something like a speeding driver that loses control and kills another driver, was it something like killing somebody out of self defense, or was it something like planning out the murder of a family of four?
Of course nobody will be sent to the death penalty unless they deserve it. It is reserved for usually people who have committed multiple murders or rape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEvilDookie View Post
Would this person actually be happier with his/her life in jail or in the real world? There are some messed up people out there that would be more than happy to be fed meals daily (no matter how gross), and hang out with people of his/her own kind. So would a life sentence be doing a favor to the criminal? Do we even care about how the offender feels or is it all about removing this person from the public sector?
Yes, there are serious murderers out there that will enjoy a placid life in prison. It's important that we punish them, not accommodate them. Therefore, the death penalty is necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-23-2011, 03:03 AM
TheEvilDookie's Avatar
TheEvilDookie Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,983
Send a message via AIM to TheEvilDookie Send a message via MSN to TheEvilDookie Send a message via Skype™ to TheEvilDookie
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Armada
Pro-Capital Punishment

Sorry, Dookie, but the death penalty is not more expensive than life in prison. While the up-front costs for the death penalty is undoubtedly greater, over the course of a prisoner's life (obviously depending on his age), the cost of life imprisonment becomes much greater than that of an execution. In addition, many of those who are accused of crimes worthy of the death penalty plead guilty in order to avoid the death penalty, thus avoiding court costs altogether, making the death penalty a cost, time, and effort-saving tool in the hands of prosecutors in plea bargaining even if it is never used.

(ignore the numbers in parentheses, they are citations and addendums in the article)

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dp.html
That article is very much outdated. It wad published in 1997 when our country wasn't in the same kind of recession that we're in now. In today's economy, it costs roughly ten times more to execute an inmate than it does to give them life in prison. This is solely because of the slow process of the court and appeal systems. Sometimes it can take up to 20 years to sentence a criminal to death.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692...question-cost/

Quote:
Originally Posted by lus
Sorry, but the only people that actually enjoy jail are the desperately poor, because they can't get services like medical care or even food any other way. Nobody enjoys having their freedom taken away permanently, least of all murderers. Also, the criminal justice system is competent enough to detect when the intent of a murder is to go to jail (which, incidentally, I cannot find a single case thereof so this entire issue may be totally irrelevant).
What you seemed to have disregard is that a large chunk of those in prison were terribly impoverished. A statistic from Canada states that "less than 10 percent of Canadians live beneath the poverty line, but almost 100 per cent of our prison inmates come from that 10 percent." Those people probably didn't have daily meals or any kind of health care anyways. So for those people, while they may not necessarily enjoy it right away, their lives become better than they were before.

http://www.cpj.ca/en/blog/chandra/to...ty-tough-crime

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iso
First, there should be no price on the cost of justice. Second, the only reason it is so costly is because of the amount of court appearances. Like I said before, the process can be improved to be more streamlined and require less court appearances.
While it may be true that we could easily reduce the costs by just giving the death penalty right away, but you and I both know that it would be very hard for this to be done. You have extremists for everything including that group of people who are fighting against the death penalty.
__________________


^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-23-2011, 03:36 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Armada
Pro-Death Penalty

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEvilDookie View Post
That article is very much outdated. It wad published in 1997 when our country wasn't in the same kind of recession that we're in now. In today's economy, it costs roughly ten times more to execute an inmate than it does to give them life in prison. This is solely because of the slow process of the court and appeal systems. Sometimes it can take up to 20 years to sentence a criminal to death.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692...question-cost/
That article is referring to California, which, as the article itself states, has a legendarily slow judicial process, easily the worst in the United States. That cost is not the norm. A lot of studies comparing the cost of death penalty vs life imprisonment only compare the cost of the court cases, and do not factor in the long-term cost of life-imprisonment; the food, water, utilities, Medicare, and also the cost of inflation, which is definitely not something to be trifled with. As Americans are often wont to do, they are manipulating statistics to put off present cost into the future; borrowing against the future, so to speak, in order to pay for the now.

In addition, you have yet to respond to the use of the threat of the death penalty as a tool to get suspects to plea guilty, saving money by avoiding drawn-out court cases altogether. This is also a cost-saving measure of the death penalty that is difficult to calculate exactly.

Quote:
What you seemed to have disregard is that a large chunk of those in prison were terribly impoverished. A statistic from Canada states that "less than 10 percent of Canadians live beneath the poverty line, but almost 100 per cent of our prison inmates come from that 10 percent." Those people probably didn't have daily meals or any kind of health care anyways. So for those people, while they may not necessarily enjoy it right away, their lives become better than they were before.

http://www.cpj.ca/en/blog/chandra/to...ty-tough-crime
Ok, I don't know if you realize this, but the poverty line in the US and Canada is way, way, way above what is needed to have three meals a day. In the US, a mere 3.5% of the population in 2002 had to go hungry at some point during the year. And, at least in Canada, health care is entirely funded by the government. While it's certainly true that in very rare cases, people want to go to jail, no one commits murder to do it. If you can find me cases where this is actually an issue, then your argument may have some clout. And, at any rate, isn't this an argument FOR the death penalty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty..._United_States

Quote:
While it may be true that we could easily reduce the costs by just giving the death penalty right away, but you and I both know that it would be very hard for this to be done. You have extremists for everything including that group of people who are fighting against the death penalty.
The political practicality of whether the death penalty should be instituted or not should not be relevant to the discussion; at least when it's something this minor that only requires a small shift in public opinion.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 07-23-2011 at 03:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-23-2011, 08:10 PM
TheEvilDookie's Avatar
TheEvilDookie Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,983
Send a message via AIM to TheEvilDookie Send a message via MSN to TheEvilDookie Send a message via Skype™ to TheEvilDookie
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
That article is referring to California, which, as the article itself states, has a legendarily slow judicial process, easily the worst in the United States. That cost is not the norm. A lot of studies comparing the cost of death penalty vs life imprisonment only compare the cost of the court cases, and do not factor in the long-term cost of life-imprisonment; the food, water, utilities, Medicare, and also the cost of inflation, which is definitely not something to be trifled with. As Americans are often wont to do, they are manipulating statistics to put off present cost into the future; borrowing against the future, so to speak, in order to pay for the now.
I used California because it's a prime example. Their studies are accurate and are a state that involve the use of the death penalty often because of the high number of crimes. Their studies are accurate and include as many statistics into factoring the total costs per inmate. Otherwise those studies wouldn't be published in the first place. And so what if California may be a little different from other states in their trials; that still doesn't take away that the study I provided was from 2009 and yours was from 1997. It's clear which contains more accurate information.

Quote:
In addition, you have yet to respond to the use of the threat of the death penalty as a tool to get suspects to plea guilty, saving money by avoiding drawn-out court cases altogether. This is also a cost-saving measure of the death penalty that is difficult to calculate exactly.
Okay, so what? What happens when you have somebody plead innocent? They may not have even committed the crime and still be found guilty which results in the execution of an innocent man or woman.

Quote:
Ok, I don't know if you realize this, but the poverty line in the US and Canada is way, way, way above what is needed to have three meals a day. In the US, a mere 3.5% of the population in 2002 had to go hungry at some point during the year. And, at least in Canada, health care is entirely funded by the government. While it's certainly true that in very rare cases, people want to go to jail, no one commits murder to do it. If you can find me cases where this is actually an issue, then your argument may have some clout. And, at any rate, isn't this an argument FOR the death penalty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty..._United_States
The health care system in Canada is terrible. I've seen a YouTube video where a guy shows how bad it is by going to the hospital and being told he has to wait 5 hours or maybe even wait until the next day to be treated. And no, this is an argument AGAINST the death penalty.

Quote:
The political practicality of whether the death penalty should be instituted or not should not be relevant to the discussion; at least when it's something this minor that only requires a small shift in public opinion.
Extremist groups are not always about politics. While they may have the support of some candidates, these groups have a purpose and would fight for it anyway. Plus, the groups against the death penalty for against it for morality purposes. I just look at it differently.

Also, because I feel that it's necessary, take a look at this article asking the question "Should the death penalty be banned in the States?" They claim to have a balanced opinion and seeing as how they give pros and cons, I believe them. The list of "Yes, it should be banned" is much more lengthy with legitimate reasoning.
  1. Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.
  2. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights.
  3. The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system.
  4. We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.
  5. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong.
  6. Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent.
  7. Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America.
  8. Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.
  9. The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process.
  10. The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death.
  11. Mentally ill patients may be put to death.
  12. It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes.
  13. It often draws top talent laywers who will work for little or no cost due to the publicity of the case and their personal beliefs against the morality of the death penalty, increasing the chances a technicality or a manipulated jury will release a guilt person.
  14. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/death_penalty.htm
__________________


^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-23-2011, 08:48 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEvilDookie View Post
I used California because it's a prime example. Their studies are accurate and are a state that involve the use of the death penalty often because of the high number of crimes. Their studies are accurate and include as many statistics into factoring the total costs per inmate. Otherwise those studies wouldn't be published in the first place. And so what if California may be a little different from other states in their trials; that still doesn't take away that the study I provided was from 2009 and yours was from 1997. It's clear which contains more accurate information.
Yes, accurate information--for California. And only California. Which, as the article itself stated, is the epitome of a terrible, inefficient judicial system. California's costs are not representative of the use of the death penalty in other states or other countries. The article you linked makes no mention of any of the facets I mentioned.

Quote:
Okay, so what? What happens when you have somebody plead innocent? They may not have even committed the crime and still be found guilty which results in the execution of an innocent man or woman.
An unprovable statement. You cannot prove that this is even relevant with modern forensics. While it is certainly theoretically possible for someone innocent to executed, the likelihood of such a thing occurring cannot be measured. Past statistics for convicts later being exonerated are not relevant because of the vast advances in forensic techniques that have occurred.

Quote:
The health care system in Canada is terrible. I've seen a YouTube video where a guy shows how bad it is by going to the hospital and being told he has to wait 5 hours or maybe even wait until the next day to be treated. And no, this is an argument AGAINST the death penalty.
Irrelevant. The health care system in Canada is the health care system in Canada. You can not improve it by being middle-class. Furthermore, your argument in no way makes the death penalty less appealing. If jail is theoretically an improvement for some murderers, then it only makes sense to execute them.

Quote:
Extremist groups are not always about politics. While they may have the support of some candidates, these groups have a purpose and would fight for it anyway. Plus, the groups against the death penalty for against it for morality purposes. I just look at it differently.
Also entirely irrelevant. Simply because someone people oppose a certain action in no way should influence whether that action should be taken or not.

Quote:
Also, because I feel that it's necessary, take a look at this article asking the question "Should the death penalty be banned in the States?" They claim to have a balanced opinion and seeing as how they give pros and cons, I believe them. The list of "Yes, it should be banned" is much more lengthy with legitimate reasoning.

[*]Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.[*] It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights.[*] The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system.[*] We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.[*] It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong.[*] Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent.
The first one I have already responded to. The rest are a matter of opinion and in no way can be objectively proven. As for clogging the court system, that is the problem of the court system, not the death penalty.

Quote:
[*] Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America.
Abolishing the death penalty would honestly make no difference whatsoever. Europeans have far more pressing reasons for their image of America.

Quote:
[*] Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.[*] The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process.[*] The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death.[*] Mentally ill patients may be put to death.[*] It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes.
Once again, a matter of opinion on whether these even matter or not.

Quote:
[*] It often draws top talent laywers who will work for little or no cost due to the publicity of the case and their personal beliefs against the morality of the death penalty, increasing the chances a technicality or a manipulated jury will release a guilt person.
Once again, a fault of the court system, not the death penalty.

Quote:
[*] It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.
wut

How is this relevant in any way whatsoever?

Your source, a technology consultant from Wisconsin, has absolutely no professional expertise in any political area whatsoever. He is very clearly not reliable to be balanced, fair, or knowledgeable. Sources like these are why so many English teachers are wary of letting students citing internet sources.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 07-23-2011 at 08:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com