CNN fires senior producer who allegedly gave mother money to rape her 9-year-old girl

[Azadina]

But its us who can't "honestly debate against it" lmao.. This level of projection is off the charts.. But please, go on, keep talking about lighting strikes to defend your position for the death penalty, like they have anything to do with each other... #brainworms

The point is, that while you act all high and mighty about preventing innocent deaths, or suffering, you've chosen to champion one of the causes where innocents die the least. Least, as in least in just about anything imaginable, including lightning strikes. So the question is, is it even about innocents suffering, or is it just an act of being all high and mighty while not really needing to bother with anything? Millions could be helped by championing some other cause where people suffer en masse. But you're getting stuck arguing for 3.8 per year.

Yes, personally this is very miniscule number, and while still not ideal, it's as low as reasonably can be. You may rage about it all you like, I'd focus my attention on victims of anti vaxxers and pointless wars instead. You know, to actually save a number of people.

[Daymanmb]

The point is

Nah, I dont care. Your point is dogshit.. You debate with non-sequiturs, while accusing everyone else of debating dishonestly.. youre toxic. #brainworms

[Lenonis]

So, 3,8 people per year on average. What was the death toll in 2 years time for people acting stupid and recklessly endanger others with the COVID? How many million is that now worldwide? Yeah, still going high and mighty about the ants in a corner of a warehouse, while bulldozers are running amok. Congrats on championing a cause that in all practicality accomplishes almost nothing. For added context, around 25 people a year in US die to lightning strikes. Over 6 times more.

"Hey guys, more people die from guns than knives so let's not care about knife attacks anymore."

This is what you are arguing.

[Azadina]

Nah, I dont care. Your point is dogshit.. You debate with non-sequiturs, while accusing everyone else of debating dishonestly.. youre toxic. #brainworms

Cries for toxic while having been pointlessly hostile the whole time, along with plenty of others. Amazing for sure. You could have just written that first sentence, at least it would have been honest. You don't care. Just virtue signal around, because it requires nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

"Hey guys, more people die from guns than knives so let's not care about knife attacks anymore."

This is what you are arguing.

Wrong. If 3.8 people on average died from knife attacks, I'd say the same, that it's not good enough of a reason to outlaw knives.

[Zinstorm]

The point is, that while you act all high and mighty about preventing innocent deaths, or suffering, you've chosen to champion one of the causes where innocents die the least. Least, as in least in just about anything imaginable, including lightning strikes. So the question is, is it even about innocents suffering, or is it just an act of being all high and mighty while not really needing to bother with anything? Millions could be helped by championing some other cause where people suffer en masse. But you're getting stuck arguing for 3.8 per year.

Yes, personally this is very miniscule number, and while still not ideal, it's as low as reasonably can be. You may rage about it all you like, I'd focus my attention on victims of anti vaxxers and pointless wars instead. You know, to actually save a number of people.

.....Really? your argument is that we are wrong for championing the wrong cause? People are allowed to champion more then one thing.... so what I should not care about racial injustice because climate change is more important as if ignored humanity may be doomed?..... No I think I'll do both as both things are worth fighting for.

Same thing here People are allowed to champion against the death penalty for the injustice (not to mention it's not even cost effective) it creates while still in your example champion for safer measures against lightning strike deaths. I'd like to think we humans can multitask.

[Azadina]

.....Really? your argument is that we are wrong for championing the wrong cause? People are allowed to champion more then one thing.... so what I should not care about racial injustice because climate change is more important as if ignored humanity may be doomed?..... No I think I'll do both as both things are worth fighting for.

Same thing here People are allowed to champion against the death penalty for the injustice (not to mention it's not even cost effective) it creates while still in your example champion for safer measures against lightning strike deaths. I'd like to think we humans can multitask.

In a way? I find it rather suspect too, because more people could be helped by just about any cause imaginable apart from that. You can champion many causes, but are you telling me it's ALL of them? It's why I suspect it's less about helping innocent people, and more about trying to score some moral high horse points on controversial subject.

[Zinstorm]

In a way? I find it rather suspect too, because more people could be helped by just about any cause imaginable apart from that. You can champion many causes, but are you telling me it's ALL of them? It's why I suspect it's less about helping innocent people, and more about trying to score some moral high horse points on controversial subject.

Well you can use me as part of your litmus test: I appose the Death penalty mainly because it's not practical. As previously noted by other posters it doesn't deter crime and on top of that it costs the government more money to do so compared to just imprisoning's the person for life. Those are my main reasons why I am against it... the moral argument is a minor one compared to it (still important mind you... I just consider the formal reasons more important).

Yes I'm sure there are people who are "trying to score moral high horse points". There are always people like that for any argument but labeling the majority of the people as the "high horse" type just because the death toll compared to other causes isn't high enough is just lazy and dumb. You have no real bases in doing that as most of the people I've seen who posted here have been giving you counter arguments that they have put thought into.

[Egomaniac]

In a way? I find it rather suspect too, because more people could be helped by just about any cause imaginable apart from that. You can champion many causes, but are you telling me it's ALL of them? It's why I suspect it's less about helping innocent people, and more about trying to score some moral high horse points on controversial subject.

I'm not sure how "Killing people is wrong and killing innocent people is worse" is a "high horse" position.

[Azadina]

Well you can use me as part of your litmus test: I appose the Death penalty mainly because it's not practical. As previously noted by other posters it doesn't deter crime and on top of that it costs the government more money to do so compared to just imprisoning's the person for life. Those are my main reasons why I am against it... the moral argument is a minor one compared to it (still important mind you... I just consider the formal reasons more important).

Yes I'm sure there are people who are "trying to score moral high horse points". There are always people like that for any argument but labeling the majority of the people as the "high horse" type just because the death toll compared to other causes isn't high enough is just lazy and dumb. You have no real bases in doing that as most of the people I've seen who posted here have been giving you counter arguments that they have put thought into.

Allow me to address each of the bolded points:

It may not deter crime from happening in the first place, but it certainly eliminates any and all chances of it happening again from the same person. It works for the purpose I think it's supposed to.

Cost, something a revamp should address, a revamp of the system I did say it needs. Consider that solved.

As for the rest, if you feel some arguments weren't addressed, point it out and I'll address it as it comes up.

I'm not sure how "Killing people is wrong and killing innocent people is worse" is a "high horse" position.

The high horse comes from the fact that like many others, that position in itself is not something I disagree with. But unlike others, I can accept that a system is not flawless and able of having absolute 0 innocent casualties. No human made system is capable of that. None whatsoever. Instead of accepting a minimal amount above 0, people are going on a god damn frenzy over the "barbarism" of tolerating anything above 0, as if that's a possibility outside of not having any systems at all (and yea, that's literally the argument against death penalty. Above 0 = system must not exist). Hence, it does seem like high horse virtue signaling.

[Egomaniac]

The high horse comes from the fact that like many others, that position in itself is not something I disagree with. But unlike others, I can accept that a system is not flawless and able of having absolute 0 innocent casualties. No human made system is capable of that. None whatsoever. Instead of accepting a minimal amount above 0, people are going on a god damn frenzy over the "barbarism" of tolerating anything above 0, as if that's a possibility outside of not having any systems at all (and yea, that's literally the argument against death penalty. Above 0 = system must not exist). Hence, it does seem like high horse virtue signaling.

It's actually really easy to have 0 innocent casualties in this matter. No death penalty = no innocent people executed. Pretty easy fix.

And no, that's not the argument against the death penalty...it's an argument against the death penalty. Another argument is economics. Another is that the justice system is supposed to be about rehabilitation... not revenge.

[Azadina]

It's actually really easy to have 0 innocent casualties in this matter. No death penalty = no innocent people executed. Pretty easy fix.

And no, that's not the argument against the death penalty...it's an argument against the death penalty. Another argument is economics. Another is that the justice system is supposed to be about rehabilitation... not revenge.

Yea, literally have no systems where above 0 is possible, so have none.

Economic part? Easily fixed. Rehabilitation? For child rapists? Exactly the big reason I'm adamant for it. So that you cannot at any point release such an individual back to the society, and roll dice on more kids. I want to make it impossible for you to even attempt it. If you were somehow able to make a divine and unbreakable promise that such people would never, under any condition see an outside of prison, I'd walk away from the death penalty idea. Short of that, it's the only sure guarantee.

[Egomaniac]

Yea, literally have no systems where above 0 is possible, so have none.

Seems to be your position regarding rehabilitation isn't it? That because some people can't be rehabilitated...better to not even try?

Economic part? Easily fixed.

How do you fix the ecomomic part? Death Penalty cases cost more to go to trial and Prisoners on death row cost more to maintain. Are you going to eliminate the appeal process so that even more innocent people can be executed?

Rehabilitation? For child rapists? Exactly the big reason I'm adamant for it. So that you cannot at any point release such an individual back to the society, and roll dice on more kids. I want to make it impossible for you to even attempt it.

Yes, Sexual Predators can be rehabilitated. And for those that can't...Life in Prison is still more ecomomically practical than the death penalty.

[Triceron]

Wrong. If 3.8 people on average died from knife attacks, I'd say the same, that it's not good enough of a reason to outlaw knives.

Don't know about you, but it's rather difficult to cut my steak with a gun.

[Azadina]

Seems to be your position regarding rehabilitation isn't it? That because some people can't be rehabilitated...better to not even try?



How do you fix the ecomomic part? Death Penalty cases cost more to go to trial and Prisoners on death row cost more to maintain. Are you going to eliminate the appeal process so that even more innocent people can be executed?



Yes, Sexual Predators can be rehabilitated. And for those that can't...Life in Prison is still more ecomomically practical than the death penalty.

Ironic isn't it? Your inability, or unwillingness to guarantee similar zero tolerance approach to life in prison (aka never out on any condition) is precisely the reason the death penalty is the only way to be sure.

And some crimes should not be handwaved with time served along with rehabilitation. Just no. You're reinforcing my case for death penalty, because you would attempt it regardless of the atrocity. You leave only one alternative to stop it from happening.

[Egomaniac]

Ironic isn't it? Your inability, or unwillingness to guarantee similar zero tolerance approach to life in prison (aka never out on any condition) is precisely the reason the death penalty is the only way to be sure.

Life in Prison sentences can be overturned. Executions are permanent.

"The only way to be sure" innocent people are not executed is to stop executing people.

And some crimes should not be handwaved with time served along with rehabilitation. Just no. You're reinforcing my case for death penalty, because you would attempt it regardless of the atrocity. You leave only one alternative to stop it from happening.

You're talking about vengeance...not justice. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

And you still haven't answered how you're going to fix the economic issues that come with the Death Penalty.

[Azadina]

Don't know about you, but it's rather difficult to cut my steak with a gun.

Have you tried shooting it?

[Daymanmb]

Ironic isn't it? Your inability, or unwillingness to guarantee similar zero tolerance approach to life in prison (aka never out on any condition) is precisely the reason the death penalty is the only way to be sure.

And some crimes should not be handwaved with time served along with rehabilitation. Just no. You're reinforcing my case for death penalty, because you would attempt it regardless of the atrocity. You leave only one alternative to stop it from happening.

Rehabilitation? For child rapists? Exactly the big reason I'm adamant for it.

My man, they dont even execute child rapists... wtf are you talking about? Could you try to discuss this pragmatically, without jumping to hyperbolic, emotional appeal examples, where state execution doesnt even apply?

[Mihalik]

Economic part? Easily fixed. Rehabilitation?

The only way to "fix" the economic part is by eliminating the appeals process and to reduce the burden of proof required to convict someone. Essentially what you want is kangaroo courts where convictions are based mostly on "feelz" and where convictions invariably lead to death.

We've done that, been there, and it fucking sucks ass and we ended up with a whole bunch of innocent people getting murdered because that's what human biases invariably lead to unless we check for our worst impulses. Yet we still haven't fucking even managed to eliminate the existing biases from our existing system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_a..._United_States

[Azadina]

Life in Prison sentences can be overturned. Executions are permanent.

"The only way to be sure" innocent people are not executed is to stop executing people.



You're talking about vengeance...not justice. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

And you still haven't answered how you're going to fix the economic issues that come with the Death Penalty.

There's no justice in letting child rapists back to roam the society. Either keep them locked up or it's the way where you cannot get them out, because they're no longer around.

[Egomaniac]

Have you tried shooting it?

That does appear to be your answer to everything...