ShannonKW: But piously simpering about how awful it is is about the worst way you could argue against it.

You're saying that the worst arguments against the death penalty are ethical arguments?

it is strange that those absolutely bug-eyed crazy as a shiat house rat folks and then the just almost incredibly dim fellows like this poor soul don't get just a little *well son, good news, your incredibly f*cked up mental conditions mitigate things just a bit.*

Gimmick: He killed an undercover police officer not a drug dealer.

Also, the killer wasn't retarded. He was exaggerating his stupidity to avoid the death penalty. He was thoroughly tested by a number of experts. All their test results showed he was competent except for one outlier IQ test result of 61.

The part about an undercover cop must only be in your mind, cause it sure as hell isn't mentioned in any article written about this guy's execution. You'd think they would put something out there like that.

bhcompy: unlike untreated paranoid schizophrenics who have an IQ of 160.


phew, that's good since mine is over 180

bhcompy: Err, lets see.. Inland population centers as of the 2008 presidential election:


Why don't you look at representatives instead? Voting for Obama after the 8 year Bush disaster was a choice most sane people made

btw, the same people calling for leniency here are cheering the most bug eyed crazy as a shiat house rat f*cker in history getting life in the other thread.
consistency? are you kidding? it's politics, man. politics. the victim matters, a lot.

bel4sucks: Gimmick: He killed an undercover police officer not a drug dealer.

Also, the killer wasn't retarded. He was exaggerating his stupidity to avoid the death penalty. He was thoroughly tested by a number of experts. All their test results showed he was competent except for one outlier IQ test result of 61.

The part about an undercover cop must only be in your mind, cause it sure as hell isn't mentioned in any article written about this guy's execution. You'd think they would put something out there like that.

From what I read, he killed an informant, not a cop. Don't know about the mixed IQ test results, though.

You know, it's funny. The punishment for killing someone is death in many if not most states, and yet people still kill each other. Gosh, it's almost as if capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent at all!

A man with an IQ of 61 who thinks cold-blooded murder is an appropriate response to an interpersonal conflict.

Without getting into the specifics of the case (among other things, the majority of the tests done concluded he was of more or less average intelligence, only one outlier puts him that low) just on that alone I'm going to have to say that nothing of value was lost.

There are murder cases where the situation is fuzzy and whether the death penalty is appropriate is highly debatable, like the case a couple years back where a man charged as accessory got the sentence. This, however, is not one of those cases. Asshole goes around murdering people, the state decides to kill him right back, and all that can really be said is "good riddance".

Damn, was hoping it was this guy.

FTFA : "Ya'll do understand that I came here a sinner and leaving a saint. Take me home, Jesus, take me home, Lord."

Well, he certainly sounds retarded.

Wilson was convicted in the shooting death of Jerry Robert Williams in Beaumont, Texas. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Williams was abducted and shot after a "physical confrontation" between the two men.

That's the part where it makes me think "I don't care if he's retarded. We can't have him wandering around the streets because his solution to problems is to shoot people".

Gyrfalcon: Whichever way you slice it, executing a retarded man for killing a drug dealer is just asinine.

Retarded people shouldn't get a free pass on murder. If the death penalty is going to be used, I can't see any reason it shouldn't be used in his case. Arguing that it shouldn't be used at all is a very different argument.

Gimmick: He killed an undercover police officer not a drug dealer.

Bullshiat. Wilson was a drug dealer. He got busted. He claimed that Williams snitched on him. The retard and another guy beat the crap out of Williams, then shot him. Wilson also had a history of other convictions He was a career criminal.

I can understand arguments against using the death penalty, but he was certainly a scumbag who should never walk free again, retard or not.

And making up crap about "he's not a drug dealer, he killed a police officer" is just stupid.

What if his IQ was 361?

accelerus: He was smart enough to get into a physical fight and smart enough to realize that pointing a gun and pulling the trigger would kill someone.

Insects are smart enough to get into a physical fight. And significant proportion of animal deaths are due to animals intentionally killing each other. I'm not sure that's where we want to set the standard for criminal culpability.

James F. Campbell: You know, it's funny. The punishment for killing someone is death in many if not most states, and yet people still kill each other. Gosh, it's almost as if capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent at all!

(1) That's not really the primary purpose of the death penalty. Primarily, it's about removing people judged irredeemably incompatible with society from society. And it's actually quite good at that, recidivism among people that have been executed is pretty low.

(2) By your logic, literally every law ever instituted is useless. The delusion you're suffering is so common it has its own name (the paradise fallacy) but that doesn't make it any less wrong or you any less stupid for bringing it up as if it were some sort of actual argument.

Awwwwww....poor widdle murderer! Did you gettums hurt just because you farking shot someone to death?

You farking assholes, the fact that this guy was retarded doesn't make him less deserving of the death penalty. It makes him MORE deserving of it.

But please, line up for the outrage, and tell us all how he is more valuable than the INNOCENT person he murdered.

slayer199: 2. It costs more than life in prison.
3. It has no effect as a deterrent.

Bullshiat. You're telling me that it costs more to have someone come in and crush someone's skull with a brick that it does to feed and house someone for 25+ years. Bullshiat.

Bullshiat, it deters the fark out of the one that got the death penalty. Bullshiat.

You are full of bullshiat.

Wilson had received a twenty year sentence for armed robbery when he was paroled after only serving four years. While on parole he began selling crack cocaine (delivering drugs to people's homes, counting money, making change, doing all the things drug dealers do).

He was caught selling drugs by the police and taken to jail. He was released on bond. While on bond, Wilson began the process of figuring out who had told police on him. He found out that one of his associates (Jerry Williams) was an informant for the police department. Witnesses said Wilson then abducted Williams, removed his clothes, nearly beat him to death, and finally shot and killed him.

Through his actions, Wilson proved himself to be highly functional, and he most likely purposely failed the IQ test. These guys will do anything to avoid being held accountable for their actions.

Jim_Callahan: (1) That's not really the primary purpose of the death penalty. Primarily, it's about removing people judged irredeemably incompatible with society from society. And it's actually quite good at that, recidivism among people that have been executed is pretty low.

Except it's much, much more costly than life imprisonment, which has roughly the same effectiveness as the death penalty as far as "removing people" is concerned.

Jim_Callahan: The delusion you're suffering is so common it has its own name

You do know that states without capital punishment have lower rates of violence, right? Correlation, causation, I'm a stupid liberal, facts don't matter, blah blah blah. You don't really have to reply, you know. It's kind of a waste of your time and mine. I read stupid shiat every day on Fark, and you're not making that any load any lighter.

UnspokenVoice: You pretend to be smart

No, it's not that I'm pretending to be smart; it's that I'm pretending to care about your post.

Jim_Callahan: Primarily, it's about removing people judged irredeemably incompatible with society from society.

Also, it's nice to see a Texan defend the execution of the mentally ill openly and honestly. Be proud of your belief in eugenics, Jim_Callahan!

James F. Campbell: punishment doesn't work as a deterrent

Punishment -- capital or otherwise -- only works as a deterrent when the person committing the offense understands the consequences of their actions, understands the punishment, and takes time to evaluate the long-term outcome including any likely punishment. If any of those things are not true then a potential punishment cannot deter a crime, no matter how harsh.

The only instances where harsher punishments make any difference are where someone has evaluated the long-term outcome of their actions and decided that the benefits outweigh the cost -- that considering the likelihood of being convicted and severity of the punishment, the crime is still worthwhile. So white-collar crime might be better deterred by harsher sentences, but it's unlikely that violent crimes would be impacted much at all (and comparing violent crime rates to changes in sentencing guidelines supports that prediction).

Meanwhile Oregon is fighting to not kill a prisoner who wants the death penalty.

The original pro-life movement was anti-death penalty, not anti-women's health.

/pro-life that way
//let's take the pro-life label back!

Genevieve Marie: Yea, that's not how the death penalty works.

You don't say! Really?

profplump: stuff I already know

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

"Despite all the signs of Mr. Wilson's intellectual disabilities and the diagnosis of the court-appointed neuropsychologist, the District Court of Jefferson County (Texas) concluded that Mr. Wilson is not mentally retarded"


An IQ of 61 is not considered retarded in Texas. In Texas, an IQ of 61 is considered average.

sjcousins: Damn, was hoping it was this guy.
[img2.timeinc.net image 300x400]

Hey, now "Killer Joe" is supposed to be great. Back off.

profplump: If any of those things are not true then a potential punishment cannot deter a crime, no matter how harsh.

FALSE. The death penalty deters 100% in the person who got it.

But feel free to write me back when this pile of shiat commits another crime.

Genevieve Marie: SevenizGud: Bullshiat. You're telling me that it costs more to have someone come in and crush someone's skull with a brick that it does to feed and house someone for 25+ years. Bullshiat.

Yea, that's not how the death penalty works.

Prisoners are brained with bricks all the time. That's exactly how prison works for those not isolated and thus protected from the GP on death row. When it comes to the cost of executing versus incarcerating them for life. It all depends on the length of incarceration and the cost of their healthcare.

Depends on the length of life in prison

Question 1: What if a person with an IQ of only 10 was somehow into killing people. That's his only talent in life. He can't do math, he can't do anything that requires more than his murderous hands. If this person with low IQ was caught and to be punished, how should it be handled?

Question 2: Same as above, except that one of the victims this time is your family member, friend, or a loved one.

SevenizGud: the fact that this guy was retarded doesn't make him less deserving of the death penalty. It makes him MORE deserving of it.

I'm pretty sure the argument is not that he shouldn't be supervised, but that the People of Texas are culpable for the crime because they didn't provide the supervision that this man requires. Much like we'd hold a weapon owner/parent responsible if a 4-year-old found an unsecured weapon and killed someone with it.

James F. Campbell: Thanks, Captain Obvious.

I was agreeing with you.

GreenSun: Question 1: What if a person with an IQ of only 10 was somehow into killing people.

From what I understand of IQ, a duck would probably be a lot smarter than him. When mallards start going on killing sprees I'll be worried.

video man
Genevieve Marie
StreetlightInTheGhetto
the ha ha guy
Aerox
mithras_angel

Thanks for the insightful answers guys and taking the time to do them.

Anyway, I'm not from the USA and my country doesn't have either life sentence nor death penalty, so I wanted to know what was the deal.

SevenizGud: FALSE. The death penalty deters 100% in the person who got it.

I'm not sure you understand what "deter" means. Killing someone after the fact does not deter them from committing a crime -- the crime still happened and the death penalty didn't prevent it.

But feel free to write me back when this pile of shiat commits another crime.

No one is suggesting he should be released into free society, so I'm not sure why you think he'll have significant opportunities to commit additional crimes (except perhaps to other criminals via the incompetence of his jailers).

profplump: James F. Campbell: Thanks, Captain Obvious.

I was agreeing with you.

Aww. I'm sorry. It's just... it's so hard to tell these days. I've... I've spent so long in the Politics tab trenches. So... long...

relcec: btw, the same people calling for leniency here are cheering the most bug eyed crazy as a shiat house rat f*cker in history getting life in the other thread.
consistency? are you kidding? it's politics, man. politics. the victim matters, a lot.


Surprise surprise the strawman comes out from the desperate

GreenSun: Question 2: Same as above, except that one of the victims this time is your family member, friend, or a loved one.

The whole point of the justice system is to isolate the legitimate but blinding pain of the victim and their relations from the administration of punishments. Revenge-based systems rarely lead to just outcomes.

SevenizGud: FALSE. The death penalty deters 100% in the person who got it.

But feel free to write me back when this pile of shiat commits another crime.


The argument is deterrent for others, which has been the pro death penalty argument since day 1.

Nice try though, but you can't weasel your way out of this one

James F. Campbell: Gosh, it's almost as if capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent at all!

Lynchings and cross burnings were not intended as a deterrent to miscegenation.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: You're not looking at the foothills and Northern part of the state. Placer and El Dorado are full-tilt teabag, and the counties further North are worse

And what kind of population are we talking about? Nothing to be worried about, really. The population centers way up north are in the Chico and Eureka areas.. both heavily liberal. Modoc County might be heavily Republican, but only 10000 people live there.

JuggleGeek: We can't have him wandering around the streets because his solution to problems is to shoot people".

Thread merge!

SevenizGud:
But please, line up for the outrage, and tell us all how he is more valuable than the INNOCENT person he murdered.

The person he murdered wasn't innocent. Does that change your views at all?

/Doesn't change mine.

SevenizGud: Bullshiat, it deters the fark out of the one that got the death penalty. Bullshiat.

If t had deterred them, they wouldn't have committed the crime which got them the death penalty, now would they?