The Case of Troy Davis

[librarian]

Heiho,

Of course, a person of reasonable intelligence would see a difference between executing a small number for what they've done and exterminating many thousands for who they are. One has to wonder about the underlying character of a person who would use an innuendo of this type to make his argument. Not to mention the bankruptcy of an argument that requires such tactics.

nice. I've avoided characterizing you as a moron for comparing humans to vermin, instead giving you an example why this comparison may be seen as moronic from another context, and you turn it against me. I've seen such trickery in discussions before, and it doesn't suddenly become valid.

Again, your logic is suspect. The question is not "death penalty or ten hours of community service." The question is not even death versus life in prison, for a person executed in prison is indeed in prison for the remainder of his life. That person is never again going to be at liberty to demonstrate his 'improvement'. Rehabilitation is thus a red herring -- it means nothing in this discussion.

I'll shorten your quotes as well from now on, so they'll suit my answers better. It's fine to mock me for my reading comprehension, but you should follow the standard you expect from others.

Does the Nobel committee know where to send your prize? For it sounds like you've answered some questions about how genetics works and how how the brain functions that have been baffling the experts for years. And you've finally solved the free will dispute.

Again, improve your own reading comprehension. I wrote they don't work that way in first and second place, and this is scientific proven. This doesn't mean that I know _how_ they work, which at te moment no-one knows. Irony is good. Twisting a sentence's semantics around until you can find a way to mock about it is bad.
As for the third matter, I explicitly wrote 'I think'. 'I think' has other meaning than 'I know'. Seems this needs to be explained to you, who has at least lived since age six with the language, by someone like me, who is no native English speaker and works with it mainly in context of technical documentations.

"Death penalty, yes or no?" is a different discussion from "Which form of execution?" and to mix the two is a sign of flawed logic.

It was you who brought the matter of peaceful death versus life-long lingering in jail. To show you and any lurking reader that 'peaceful death' is quite misleading makes me the illogical one?

Tell that to the 1513 people who died in the Titanic disaster. Or, better yet, tell it to the North Atlantic. And ask it to stop killing people.

You've tried that stuff already with kandrathe, this doesn't become any better with repetition. It is in no way logical to compare nature's forces with willingful violence of human versus human. It just makes good for semi-witty remarks.
Besides, nowadays the Titanic's captain would probably go to trial for [fahrlaessige Toetung] negligent homicide, because he's the one responsible for colliding (don't know if he survived or if he died, following the 'the captain sinks with his ship' tradition); furthermore the company would go to trial for carelessly advertising unsinkability.

Depends on why he is sentenced to death.

I've adressed this before. You should know.

Incorrect logic. This is based on a person having rights in the abstract (which is debatable) and those rights not being forfeit by one's actions, which is clearly nonsense.

You mix up the 'right' to drive with the right to live. This renders the whole paragraph into meaningless insignificance, even with the right of freedom involved.
As for the right of freedom hurt by incarceration, maybe it would be worth a second thought about rehabilitation and resocialization.

I favor the death penalty for a number of reasons. The first of these is purely economic.

A society which happily burns money by billions should regard this as 'peanuts'.

The second is that dead people are not released with a change of law or some politically inspired pardon. They do not escape. And they don't continue to commit crimes while in prison, either against their fellow inmates or through their connections to those outside of jail against whom they have a grudge.

This is a reason for better jails, and, more important, more efficiency in fighting corruptness.

The third reason is that I believe that the death penalty would be an incentive in preventing crime.

To use your kind of argumentation: tell this the victims of Jack the Ripper.

The last paragraph is emotional crap, and still lacks the definition of 'evil - who and how'.