To Death Penalty Proponents, a question, if you'll answer...

[Solon]

What is the acceptable rate of error in administering the Death penalty, in your opinion?

ON EDIT: You can give the answer as a hard number, percentage, etc.

This is my challenge for the night, I'm going to bed. Look forward to any responses tomorrow!

[Smith_3]

1. You will not receive any sensible answers to this.

Because death penalty proponents rarely think this far.

[ashling]

2. I OPPOSE the dp for this reason

I think it is warranted in some cases, but this reasoning trumps that

[MrSlayer]

3. If we go by your reasoning, why should we ever convict and punish anyone for anything?

I'm for the DP in the open and shut, no doubt about it cases. Cases where there is video evidence, cases where there is DNA evidence, cases where there is no doubt. There are tons of those. In those cases the perps should be killed directly after the trial ends. If there is any doubt, a life sentence is fine until it can be proven absolutely one way or the other. If it never is then they just rot in prison, innocent or not. I see no reason why the absolute guilty should be let off and given three hots and a cot for life just because somewhere an innocent person may be convicted of a capital offense. For every one of those cases where it was mistaken, there are a hundred that are correct. And those people should die for their crimes.

If we go by your reasoning, why should we ever convict and punish anyone for anything? People get wrongly convicted all the time for every crime on the books.

[gaspee]

5. Are you willing to be the person

Wrongly convicted and put to death? Because behind your willingness to put an innocent person to death there is a real human being that will suffer the injustice.

And overwhelmingly it will be people of color and or poor people who suffer the injustice.

As long as the size of your bank account determines guilt or innocence, in many cases, there is no justice - the death penalty has been proven to be racist and class based.

But I guess that's all right with you.

[zanne]

7. Good post, gaspee. nt

[MrSlayer]

8. Apparently, you did not read my post.

I said those that are absolutely, 100%, no fucking doubt about it, guilty must face the hangman. In cases where there is legitimate doubt, life will suffice. Again, for every one of the mistakes there are a hundred absolutes. Why shouldn't the absolutely guilty pay for their crimes because someone else might be innocent of the same crime they are convicted of and sentenced for?

You and I are talking about two separate things. You are talking, legitimately, about the terrible railroading people, especially the poor and minorities, get in the court system. And I agree it's a ridiculous, heinous thing and I have all sympathy. However, there are the John Evander Couey, Joseph Smith, Richard Ramirez and John Wayne Gacys out there who are (were) absolutely guilty of their crimes and should simply be killed and left to rot in the dump where at least the rats can benefit from their worthless lives.

The way I have it set leaves very little room for error. If anyone is good enough to get you with video, DNA, multiple eyewitness accounts, you leading the cops to the body or any other form of absolute proof, while you are innocent, then they were going to get you no matter what. That's just really hard luck or you really pissed off the wrong people.

[Solon]

11. The problem is that our system of justice isn't set up as you would like it...

You are talking about administering the death penalty in a way to minimize errors, that's fine, its also impossible to implement those standards as you set them out, and its not practiced that way now. My question pertained to how the death penalty is administered in this country HERE AND NOW, not in some theoretical la la land where it no longer has bias or mistakes aren't made.

[Dogtown]

12. GOD

you mean. Only that judeo-xian god could be that certain.

Or maybe you'd like to get to pick...

[Bjorn Against]

54. Can you cite any cases to me in which a judge convicted someone...

But then said there were doubts about that person's guilt right before they sent them off to prison? Usually when a person is convicted they are said to have been "proven guilty" no matter how weak the proof is, no judge or jury is ever going to admit that there may be doubts to a person's guilt.

[hlthe2b]

9. So, in your mind a wrongful conviction resulting in death versus

a wrongful conviction resulting in inprisonment (with the possibiliy of rectification sometime during the sentence and subsequent release) are totally equivalent... :shrug:

As to your premise of "absolute no doubt type convictions," if one allows for the premise of a "perfect murder," i.e., one which allows for virtually no chance of the death being identified as murder and/or essentially no chance of a perperator being found out, can you not also wrap your mind around a "perfect set-up" in terms of murder? Yes, these scenarios DO happen. As we start allowing for the banking of DNA for various reasons, both appropriate (and less so), the opportunity for nefarious use increases as well. What better way to get rid of a powerful enemy-political or otherwise? Something to think about, if you will.

[ET Awful]

10. Little hint . . . if you mistakenly lock someone up, you can later set them free

If you mistakenly kill someone you can't bring them back.

[spanone]

15. thou shalt not kill....

[Ghost in the Machine]

19. Unless you're Gawd, then you can smite villages or rain down fire & brimstone

Religious nutbaggery has no place in our Government or system of laws.

[MrSlayer]

31. Has no meaning for me.

Quoting the "Ten Commandments" is not going to move me or stop me from killing someone to defend myself or my family. Would you really adhere to that philosophy if someone was physically threatening your child/parent/significant other/pet etcetera with death and you had the opportunity to take them first? I don't believe you would. It's easy to sit back and ask for mercy on the criminal when isn't your child who is violated and mutilated. There is no value in keeping someone like Manson or Ramirez or countless other less notorious but as bad or worse killers alive.

[Dogtown]

35. MrKiller

There you go wanting to murder folks again.

Even though you cite a "just cause" it's still disturbing that you rant on killing folks all the time.

Is there something that feeds this anger that you'd like to share with the class?



Also, this is a thread on the death penalty, not on self-defense. Few here would argue with defending your family (the family pet might be considered extreme by most folks and, in fact, it isn't legal to use lethal force in that instance.) Do you have anything to contribute to the actual discussion, or do you just need to convince us (or yourself) how unstable you are?

[MrSlayer]

48. You call it murder, I call it justice.

Actually, I'm quite grounded. I just think there are people that deserve death for committing horrible crimes. I don't see why it's such a big deal really. You rape and murder people, you die for it, quite simple. Just because I'm pro-death penalty doesn't mean I'm "unstable" or dangerous or insane anymore than anyone who thinks abortion on demand is fine and dandy. I'm pro-choice, does that make me even crazier? Killing is killing. But one is acceptable here and the other isn't. The people that I want dead have earned it.

Nobody cares that I agree with most liberal/progressive issues. Why the hell would I even be here if I didn't support those things? When I go against the grain on a very few issues I become "unstable". It's ridiculous. No one is absolutely on one side of every issue unless they're a robot or a lemming. Like most people, my positions have a wide range but I still wind up to the left of Ghandi on all the politic compass tests.

Thou shalt not kill means exactly that. No killing under any circumstance. So don't try to throw that bullshit in my face when you don't even agree with it yourself.

[mitchum]

37. That tribal law for ancient herdsmen actually says "thou shall not murder"

there is a difference

[uppityperson]

16. I think the question was about death, not about broader "punishment".

Since the death penalty results in killing someone, which is different from most other punishments.

[Ghost in the Machine]

17. Well said.... I agree with you 100%

We have advanced a lot in technology, which is a good thing. If there is indisputable evidence, especially on video or via confession, I'm all for the death penalty.

DNA *can* be manipulated/planted as evidence, but most times can be trusted.


Ghost

[Solon]

20. Interesting...

We have advanced a lot in technology, which is a good thing. If there is indisputable evidence, especially on video or via confession, I'm all for the death penalty.

DNA *can* be manipulated/planted as evidence, but most times can be trusted.

So answer the question, how many innocent people should be put to death to keep the death penalty as it is, and don't give me this cop out shit about how you would LIKE it to be, you ask for impossible standards, that don't exist in the real world. My question pertains to the HERE AND NOW.

Besides that, advances in technology has increased forensic accuracy, it also opens up numerous possibilities for manipulation of evidence, including video, and don't get me started on confessions, how many people have been freed from death row and prison lately after confessing to a crime they didn't commit?

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. DNA evidence and videotape don't exist in the real world here & now?

"So answer the question, how many innocent people should be put to death to keep the death penalty as it is,..."

Well, if you want a *real* honest answer, from my disconnected pychopathic side, I'd have to say that I really don't *care* how many die. Sure, it'd be a shame... a tragedy even, but the bigger question is "how many more INNOCENT VICTIMS have to be murdered before "touchy feely do-gooder criminal coddlers" quit worrying about the criminal's rights and start worrying about their victims and the families of the victims?"

My personal opinion, and this is coming from someone who used to be a criminal and has killed before, is that if you have been found guilty of murder in cold blood without ANY doubt whatsoever, they should walk your ass out to the courthouse steps and put a bullet in your head... WITH TV CAMERAS ROLLING... then look into the camera and say "this is what will happen to YOU if YOU are convicted of murder. Any questions?" Do that for a few months and watch the crime rates drop faster than Jenna Bush's panties at a coke party.

Again, how many innocent victims are you willing to let die because you'd rather coddle a criminal than to address the problem with drastic measures? That's part of the problem today... too many people don't worry about the consequences because they know their life is going to go on. Sure, they may be in prison for the rest of their lives, but they'll never again have to worry about where they're going to eat next, where they're going to lay their head down next, whether they can afford medical care or where their clothes are going to come from. Sometimes this is a better deal than what they've got now... I knew a couple of guys who actually *preferred* prison life to the outside world and would violate their parole when they got out, just so they *would* go back...

Trust me when I tell you that I *know* the criminal mindset way better than anyone here... I used to live it on a daily basis, and that's exactly what it is.. living on a daily basis, never knowing if *you* are the one who will be killed next.

That's all I'm gonna say for now... my past isn't squeaky clean, nor is it admirable, but I've moved past it. I have my freedom, but it came with a very high price....


Peace,

Ghost

[Solon]

25. The death penalty doesn't protect victims of violence...

This has been proven time and again, and the fact that you use that argument just shows the weakness in it. The fact that you are apathetic towards innocent lives, regardless of how they are killed, is illuminating, to say the least.

[Ghost in the Machine]

26. "The death penalty doesn't protect victims of violence..."

You can't say that with a certainty, as it has never, in modern times, been carried out in such a swift & sure fashion. There are people who have been on 'death row' for 20 & 30 years....

"The fact that you are apathetic towards innocent lives, regardless of how they are killed, is illuminating, to say the least."

Yeah, I can turn that right back around on you, but the number of innocent lives affected are a whole lot more in your case... tens of thousands more. I wouldn't coddle 10,000 criminals just to save one or two...

I lost the ability to *feel* a long time ago. I can turn my emotions off & on like a switch. The only true *passion* I have anymore is helping the poor and needy, even if I'm at that point now myself. It's my chosen path of redemption for my past.... something inside that I feel I *must* do....

[Solon]

28. Statistics seem to prove me right...

In nations with the Death Penalty, the murder rate is usually much higher than in countries without it, it seems to me that there are less victims overall in non-DP countries than in a nation such as ours.

Now this is correlation, not causation, however, it does put the rest the lie that the Death Penalty PROTECTS people from being victimized.

[Dogtown]

36. ??????????????

"I lost the ability to *feel* a long time ago. I can turn my emotions off & on like a switch."

*Do Not* put that in your screenplay, it's trite, overused and just doesn't play.

Also, it's not possible. Emotional response is governed by hormone-dumps. If your adrenal gland squirts, you'll feel anger/fear. You might be able to function despite these emotions, but suggesting you can switch of your glands is so grandiose that you'll lose your audience.

You want redemption for your past mistakes, but you feel others do not deserve that same redemption. That's narcissistic as well as judgmental.

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. "*Do Not* put that in your screenplay, it's trite, overused and just doesn't play."

Fortunately (for me) I don't give a fuck *what* you think. I don't need your non-medically based pseudoscientific evaluation. By all means though, keep reading your little pop psychology books and thinking you're some kind of "doctor". Here's a free clue: You're *not* a doctor, and I've left more than a couple psychologists scratching their heads before.

"You want redemption for your past mistakes, but you feel others do not deserve that same redemption. That's narcissistic as well as judgmental."

Like I said, *my* freedom came with a high price. If someone else can pay off a cop, judge & DA, more power to them.

The way I look at it, and this is just my opinion, is that there's a BIG difference between killing some other douchebag that wants to kill you too and walking into a store and robbing & killing some innocent clerk who's just doing her job. I'll venture to guess that you don't have a clue as to the workings of the dark underworld of the cocaine trade, turf wars, motorcycle gangs and the Aryan Brotherhood. In fact, I'd bet you don't have the guts, or the balls, to walk a mile in *my* shoes, my friend....

[Dogtown]

41. We get it

You're a rugged individualist. A veritable modern-day mountain man that can change the rules, because you're more resolute than us mere mortals.

Luckily, I'm not impressed by anecdotal evidence and personal grandiosity.

Perhaps I worked undercover on a DEA task force in the 70s, and maybe I rode with the "Brotherhood of the Gypsy Outlaw". And can instantly recognize a poser by his bragadaccio and lies.

Maybe I arrested runny-nosed punks who couldn't keep their shit together and got their "outlaw" asses busted.

But probably not. Probably I'm some Joe Ordinary that isn't impressed by braggarts that tell stories they are paraphrasing from True Detective magazines.

Tough-talk someone else. I don't care to walk in your Bostonians, even if you are dumb-ass enough to get yourself popped (instead of just telling stories). It's not about fear, common-sense dictates that there is no nobility or hero-aspect to being a bullshit bandit.

Chest-thump elsewhere, foolish child. Show the kids at 7/11 your tatoos and amaze them with what a master-criminal you are.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Yes, but in our system evidence/testimony gets suppressed or thrown out and so forth. What

is presented to the jury that may look like an open and shut case may very well not be, or even be open and shut in the other direction, had _all_ the evidence/testimony been in play.

As for suspending the DP because of the occasional theoretical innocent person, they are very real and not just a hypothetical. Therefore you are without a doubt consigning innocents to die just so that you can make sure _some_ people get "justice". How many innocent lives is it ok to do away with in that case? Are they just so much "collateral damage" like the innocent Iraqis we've killed in the war?

[Bjorn Against]

53. But when is anyone going to acknowledge there is doubt when they convict someone?

People always make this argument that they should only use it in open and shut cases, but the problem is the people who convict someone are always going to tell you the person is guilty. They are never going to say "oh, we think he might be guilty but we aren't 100% sure, so we will just go ahead and lock him up." No, judges are always going to say that the convicted have been proven guilty because if they were to acknowledge there is a chance of innocence that would make people question the system. You can not say that you only think that the death penalty can only be used in cases of 100% certainty, because someone has to decide what meets the criteria for 100% certainty and the person who makes that decision is unlikely to admit it is anything less than that in any case.

[Hosnon]

56. My big concern is the irreversability of the punishment.

Deprivations of liberty can be reversed and then compensated; deprivations of life cannot.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

4. Zero for first offenders.

Non-issue for repeat offenders.

Should not be an option for "crimes" against the state.

[Dogtown]

13. I'm very glad

you'll never get to be a judge.

[pt22]

18. Gots a Magic Eight Ball?

:shrug:

[asteroid2003QQ47]

33. You're a repeat offender? n/t

[Dogtown]

38. I'm not offensive at all.

But you are repetitively offensive in your posts.

There's no practical mechanism for determining without any doubt that a given "offender" is guilty. That's why you hear the phrase "reasonable doubt" when you're glued to that episode of "Cops" or "Snapt"; only lack of reasonable doubt need be proved in court.

Being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt should not justify killing a prisoner. We have lots of "offenders" and "repeat" offenders, convicted on lack of reasonable doubt, that have been subsequently cleared of the charges. None of you macho killing-machines can answer that, so you wave your emotional flags in our face trying to distract us.

If you have something to add besides some butch bullshit, please do. But if all you've got is personal insults, sweeping generalizations, and unproven guesswork I'll repeat: I'm glad you're too emotionally unstable and too unintelligent to land a position in our criminal justice system.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

46. I'm . . . emotionally unstable and too unintelligent to

land a position in our criminal justice system.

You, on the other hand, given the caliber of many of the judges I've known,
would seem a perfect fit for a judgeship.

[Dogtown]

47. Yeah

I had a feeling you would allude to your glamourous past like the other arch-criminal has.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spanone]

14. there is NO acceptable number...therefore

[depakid]

22. Gotta break a couple of eggs to make an omlette

At least these countries think so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation

[Fumesucker]

23. Such a simple question

So few direct answers.

[riverdeep]

27. Two percent.

And to answer another poster, yes I'd be willing to get caught up in the net of false injustice and be one of the two percent, if it means living in a society that is serious about justice.

I reside in Illinois, where thankfully the powers that be recognized our death penalty system was massively broken. And that's why I don't support the death penalty in the current system. We have killed too many innocents. But that doesn't mean one can't be formed. It would be flawed, yes, and those flaws are something I can live (or die) with.

We live in an imperfect world, and that's the reality. Civil engineers could design roads so that the ends of lanes are a bit wider and it would save x number of lives per year. However, the monetary cost would be great. So a calculation is made. How many lives are worth it? At some point, the line between too many people killed and too expensive meet, and we get our lane widths.

Likewise, at some point, the lines meet between acceptable amount of innocents and lack of justice. Not currently, but at some point.

[Solon]

29. So damn near all other Western Democracies lack justice?

Most of them haven't practiced the Death Penalty in years, and they also have some of the lowest per-capita crime rates in the world. Which countries have more justice within them again?

ON EDIT: I'm actually surprised someone was able to come up with a number, I'm appalled at your opinion, and sense of "justice" but at least you answered.

[riverdeep]

30. I don't think a lack of death penalty and lower crime rate are corelated.

In Europe anyway. There's less crime there because the societies are generally more homogeneous with less extremes between rich and poor and less ethnic and racial divisions. Also, taking better care of its poorest citizens with generous educational opportunities means less discord. I think if they resumed the death penalty, it wouldn't make much difference.

As far as justice, in my opinion, yes, justice is not being fully served in those cases awful enough to deserve the death penalty.

[riverdeep]

32. Sorry, too late to edit.

I meant they're corelated, of course, but not causal.

[Fumesucker]

34. A noble goal

Honestly, do you think it is possible to achieve your goal in America?

The America which elected George Bush twice (or allowed him to steal it anyway) is going to come up with a system of justice which ignores race, class and sex?

[Dogtown]

39. You'd sing a much different tune

Whilst dancing the Tyburn Jig.

You're perhaps only terribly naive and have never experienced real danger.

I prefer that to thinking you're another "justice cowboy" deluded about how brave/honest/clean/obedient you are.

Save the melodrama. Most executions involve involuntary bladder-release before the lever/plunger/switch/trigger is deployed. Do you think that knowing you're serving the higher ideal of an almost-just system would stem the ochre stream?

[riverdeep]

44. If I was one my two percent?

Absolutely I'd be frightened, angry, depressed, and perhaps suicidal. Anyone would, especially in the beginning. But in the overall, it would be right. You're looking for absolutes and I don't see any absolutes in this universe. Under your standards, you could never conduct a military mission because at some point there will be innocents killed. Innocents get a voice, a big loud voice. But that voice has to be incorporated into real-world solutions while we stumble forward, best we can.

In further candor, I don't know exactly how I would react, but anticipating: if I was sent to prison for life, personally I think I would rather have the death penalty.

Executions today, while still containing elements of the grotesque, are nothing like they were (and in places still are) with hanging, stoning and drawing/quartering, etc. It's a ghastly thing to note, but it's true.

[Dogtown]

45. You're probably mistaking me.

I'm not a pacifist. I object to the DP for two reasons:

It's clearly flawed and it's also unnecessary. We *can* imprison these people without barbarous treatment and still protect the populous from them. Of course we'd have to release all the young black men guilty of holding a dime to make room for them.

It's very clearly applied unfairly to dark-people, poor whites, the indigent and the mentally challenged. Sure, we give them a lawyer. That lawyer can typically be reimbursed for up to $5,000. for the entire defense. *NOT* quality representation. Court appointed attorneys most typically arrange plea bargains, not trial defenses.

Rich folks hire lawyers and escape the consequences, if they're even brought to trial (the DuPont wrestling murder, the Busch family shooting, and JonBenet leap to mind. I won't cite OJ, since he got off due to police bungling.)

There will always be corruption and mistakes in law enforcement, but as it stands, the poor are being killed for being poor, not for being guilty.

[lonestarnot]

49. Bwwww ah hah ha haha ha ha ha ha

:rofl: I just thought I saw your face in a roll-up and you weren't in on the charge. Snort! and it didn't look so good! Snort :rofl:

[mudesi]

51. At least you're honest

You're a monster, but you're honest.

[riverdeep]

52. I won't take it personally,

though you meant it that way. This topic stirs intense passion like abortion or war and I can understand people lashing out. But what good would it be coming here if everyone agreed on everything all the time. We could just have a list of recitations of belief on the home page we could chant like a cult.

Also, since pro DP proponents aren't allowed a perfect world where where only those sentenced to die actually did it, anti DP proponents aren't allowed a perfect world where convicted murderers don't get released to kill again. Either way, then, some innocents die. The process for getting a successful execution is long (12 years) and filled with numerous chances for self correction. Releasing a former killer and hoping they don't kill again isn't so formal.

There is also debate in academic circles about whether the DP saves lives.

For the first time in a generation, the question of whether the death penalty deters murders has captured the attention of scholars in law and economics, setting off an intense new debate about one of the central justifications for capital punishment.

According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented.

“I personally am opposed to the death penalty,” said H. Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study finding that each execution saves five lives. “But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In the article, there are also critics of the studies. It's a debate. People trying to figure things out in good faith the best they can. Surely, all of us on the pro side can't be monsters?

[Phillycat]

42. One percent.

I support the death penalty.

[Bjorn Against]

55. So if a close member of your family was among that one percent would you still support it?

[Phillycat]

58. Yes.

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. I'm not sure. When it comes to raping a child, what is the acceptable rate of recidivism?

[LostinVA]

50. Life in prison without parole

Apples and oranges.

[Phillycat]

59. Great post.

:thumbsup:

[Super Soaker Sniper]

57. What is the acceptable

number of innocent victims being killed by the release of those who should have been put to death? Henry Lee Lucas is the first that comes to mind.

[Solon]

60. Interesting responses so far, about 2 people were willing to put a number on it...

and several engaged in a logical fallacy that has no relation to opposing the death penalty. They try to turn it around and claim that victims of crime somehow are saved because the death penalty exists.

First things first, as noted by most statistics, both in this country and others, this simply isn't the case, murder and violent crime rates seem to be much greater in the United States compared to most of Western Europe and Canada, most of these nations don't have a death penalty. I'm not saying there's causation here, however, it also means there's no causation in the opposite direction either. In other words, the existence or non-existence of the death penalty has no relation to how many people are victims of violent crime.

Second, to those who did put a hard number or percentage on it, I find their willingness to be put to the needle(or gas chamber, whatever) themselves to be, frankly, a lie. No one wants to die, and no one in their right mind would willingly go to the execution chamber knowing that others that are guilty are going to die the same way.

Another thing I find fascinating is that people go to extremes in this case, they make the choices either to execute someone, or set them completely free, completely ignoring the fact that there are other options, such as life without parole, that also serve the purpose of not allowing the perp to victimize innocent people again. If the sentence isn't actually for life, then ask for reform of the penal code in this case, if prison itself is a torture, ask for prison reform. But its just another fallacy to suggest that, with the absence of the death penalty, that all these murderers, rapists, etc. will be running around scot free and in no danger of any punishment.

Its almost as if death penalty proponents think that the country would devolve into anarchy without the threat of death hanging over people's heads. No offense to them, but that's just stupid.

[Phillycat]

61. So let me get this straight...

In your OP, you asked proponents of the death penalty to put a number on the percentage of blah blah, and then when we do, you say we're lying? Then what the fuck did you ask us for?

[Solon]

62. Actually no, those who put a number on it, as "acceptable" are hypocrites....

Those who claim that they are willing so be part of that percentage they find to be the acceptable number of innocent people executed are liars, straight up liars at that. Doubly so when they say they think its still an acceptable percentage even if family or friends are also executed wrongly.

[riverdeep]

63. I don't think 'willing' would be the correct word.

Rather 'resigned'. Getting caught in the net.

But please answer a scenario I posited earlier: since we cannot have a perfect world in which only the truly guilty are put to death, we also cannot have a perfect world in which convicted murderers don't get released to ply their trade again. This isn't hypothetical, either.

Also, murderers kill while in prison. In a perfect world, we would be able to anticipate which ones are dangerous enough to require segregation from the general population. But since we aren't living in one... Do you care about the life of a prisoner who's doing two years for robbery getting his neck broken because he looked at a murderer funny? Or a prison guard that got shanked because he took away his playing cards? Aren't these people innocents? Aren't their lives precious too?

What percentage of these innocents are you willing to sacrifice? What's an acceptable number? Because guess what? It's happened and it's going to happen again.

[Solon]

64. Again, a logical fallacy, refer to post 60. n/t

[riverdeep]

65. Convicted murderers don't kill in prison?

I don't see anything about that in your referenced post. You claim it's a logical fallacy. Take a look at post 52 and click on the article. There's certainly room for debate, but if I'm making a logical fallacy, then minds much sharper than mine are, as well.

[Solon]

66. That's a subject for prison reform, not for the death penalty. n/t