POLL: Should rapist get the death penalty?

[KryptoBud]

Common Struggles of Children from Alcoholic/Drug-Addicted Homes

1. Guessing at what is normal.
2. Difficulty having fun.
3. Judging themselves mercilessly.
4. Difficulty with emotional relationships.
5. Feeling "different" from other people.
6. Tendency to be impulsive.
7. Either super responsible or super irresponsible.
8. Desperately seeking approval and affirmation.
9. Suffering from chronic anxiety.
10. Lacking self discipline.
11. Compulsive liars.
12. Suffering from a critical deficiency of self-respect.
13. Fear and mistrust for authority figures.
    Child Abuse Clearly Defined
    The terms and circumstances, which define child abuse and neglect, are clearly defined at a federal level. According to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the mistreatment of children is defined as:
    
    Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caregiver, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents and imminent risk of serious harm.
    
    What could this mean in the case of children put in danger by way of drug abuse in the home? While even just exposing children to dangerous and illegal drugs could easily be considered maltreatment, additional abuse or neglect may manifest in any of the following ways:
    
    * Violence or verbal abuse resulting from being drunk or high
    * Sexual abuse or behavior which makes a child feel uncomfortable
    * Forcing a child to hide an adult’s drug abuse or alcoholism
    * Consistently leaving a child alone at home
    * Consistently ignoring a child or their needs; lack of attention
    
    The Long Term Effects of Childhood Exposure to Drug Use
    Studies exist and have been completed which focus on the long-term effects of substance abuse on the youth who are present. A shocking number of currently detained prison inmates and rehab attendees admit they had a tumultuous upbringing, having experienced some sort of neglect, or physical, sexual or verbal abuse. Further, these individuals were aware of criminality or substance abuse in their environment, setting a powerfully negative example for such youth.
    
    It is wholly observable that children who grow up amongst drug abuse, alcoholism and criminality tend to join into these activities. This creates something of a cyclic trend, making those children who are born into underprivileged homes and neighborhoods more likely to remain ‘in the system’ than those children who are born of better circumstances.

 

[KryptoBud]

benghazi.

not guilty

 

[BamaBoyBeRolling]

benghazi.

Buck how does it feel to only exist in forums you average 40 post a day.

 

[april]

My bad..gone ♡

 

[Ace Yonder]

Your cut and paste skills are wonderful. Your reading comprehension needs some work. I didn't call you rude and i don't have "little holier than thou attitude." Again trying to insult people instead of stating fact. All i'm doing is pointing out your and buck's behavior is similar to the bold type "facts" you're posting. What do your studies say about kids being raised
in homes with drug addicts and criminals who grow drugs. You're so concerned with safety and mental health why do you subject kids to that type of criminal behavior? Those studies mean nothing do they? You're so concerned with being right you're blind to how much of a hypocrite you are. That's really is my only point. You act like a spoiled child that can't get his way. Keep making your assumptions, insults, and threats it's wonderful example for people to follow. The truth is your studies could be %100 fact, I wouldn't know I've never hit a child because I don't have any. Sometimes people that like to preach need a mirror held up for them to have a look in.

Then why are you such a strong advocate of hitting kids? You admit the studies say what I am saying they do, you admit there is a chance they are right, yet you still encourage the behavior? Even knowing that, even if somehow "just spanking" doesn't cause these issues, spanking is proven to lose effectiveness and people who spank are more likely to escalate into more violent forms of abuse (another fact which is brought up over and over in the studies is that parents who spank are very likely to escalate beyond spanking)? There is a mental leap somewhere along that line of reasoning that I fail to understand.

 

[Ace Yonder]

Well look what I found ...I can also copy and past a study ...

Cause and the effect
Despite the fervor of anti-spanking experts, the scientific evidence that spanking does cause behavioral trouble later in life is thin. While spanking has been associated with a wide range of negative effects, such as increased aggression, decreased self-control and adolescent depression, the studies can't prove that these effects were caused by spanking. For instance, it may be that aggressive kids with poor self-control get spanked more because their behavior makes their parents angrier. Or it might be that aggressive parents with poor self-control spank more and are also more likely to pass on to their kids genes linked to aggression and poor self-control.

And many of the studies tend not to differentiate between parents who spank frequently and forcefully and those who do so occasionally and moderately. So results get lumped together, with different definitions of "spanking" carrying the same weight.

Such studies only prove that nothing was proved, say Diana Baumrind, Ph.D., of the University of California, Berkeley, and Robert Larzelere, at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, in Omaha, both of whom have been critical of the wide-ranging conclusions reached by many studies of physical punishment. Baumrind, in fact, has conducted research suggesting that "moderate" spanking has no effect on kids' well-being.

Happy pumpkin? ?

First, I said find me a study (an article is not a study), finding one doctor who is skeptical about whether some of the studies actually proved causality does not qualify as a study that shows that spanked children don't grow up with problems (EVERY study says that they do, even the quote you provided just says they aren't positive spanking is the reason WHY they grow up with problems, it never claims they don't grow up worse off than unspanked kids because it is an undeniable fact that they do). By the way, did you even bother to read to the end of the article you quoted from? Maybe you did and that's why you didn't provide the URL, thinking it would stop me from finding it. For the rest of the class, this is how your "pro spanking study"(Actually just an article) ends:

"So if hard numbers can't prove that spanking is good or bad or safe or dangerous, perhaps it's not a data issue to begin with. The question of whether spanking works, or is safe, is beside the point. Maybe the question should be "Is it really, absolutely necessary?" And, given the moral Pandora's box that it unlocks, the less fraught options at your disposal for addressing childish misbehavior, and the fact that your child is watching, waiting and learning from your decision, the answer seems clearly to just be no."

So, your BEST evidence actually agrees with me. Bravo!

 

[Ace Yonder]

Common Struggles of Children from Alcoholic/Drug-Addicted Homes

1. Guessing at what is normal.
2. Difficulty having fun.
3. Judging themselves mercilessly.
4. Difficulty with emotional relationships.
5. Feeling "different" from other people.
6. Tendency to be impulsive.
7. Either super responsible or super irresponsible.
8. Desperately seeking approval and affirmation.
9. Suffering from chronic anxiety.
10. Lacking self discipline.
11. Compulsive liars.
12. Suffering from a critical deficiency of self-respect.
13. Fear and mistrust for authority figures.
    Child Abuse Clearly Defined
    The terms and circumstances, which define child abuse and neglect, are clearly defined at a federal level. According to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the mistreatment of children is defined as:
    
    Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caregiver, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents and imminent risk of serious harm.
    
    What could this mean in the case of children put in danger by way of drug abuse in the home? While even just exposing children to dangerous and illegal drugs could easily be considered maltreatment, additional abuse or neglect may manifest in any of the following ways:
    
    * Violence or verbal abuse resulting from being drunk or high
    * Sexual abuse or behavior which makes a child feel uncomfortable
    * Forcing a child to hide an adult’s drug abuse or alcoholism
    * Consistently leaving a child alone at home
    * Consistently ignoring a child or their needs; lack of attention
    
    The Long Term Effects of Childhood Exposure to Drug Use
    Studies exist and have been completed which focus on the long-term effects of substance abuse on the youth who are present. A shocking number of currently detained prison inmates and rehab attendees admit they had a tumultuous upbringing, having experienced some sort of neglect, or physical, sexual or verbal abuse. Further, these individuals were aware of criminality or substance abuse in their environment, setting a powerfully negative example for such youth.
    
    It is wholly observable that children who grow up amongst drug abuse, alcoholism and criminality tend to join into these activities. This creates something of a cyclic trend, making those children who are born into underprivileged homes and neighborhoods more likely to remain ‘in the system’ than those children who are born of better circumstances.

So your point is that I (who doesn't have kids, I don't know where you think you read that I did), by raising kids (again, I'm not) in a home with medical marijuana, that is the kind of "drug addiction" that will cause these things in children, so I am a hypocrite for suggesting spanking is a problem? First, good luck pushing that level of reefer madness-esque anti-pot propaganda on this forum. If you can't figure out that living in a home with drug abuse usually means a hell of a lot more than pot, you probably shouldn't be on this site. Secondly, your argument is only hurting the people who DO have kids that they DO hit that ALSO live in their homes, as you are now suggesting they are, as drug addicts, unfit to raise children. Or did you forget that they are ALSO pot growers and users? Did you think me and Buck were the only ones who grow and smoke weed here? Did you forget what site this is??

 

[RickyBobby26]

You should look up the number of people who have spent 20+ years in prison for crimes they didn't commit.
I think keeping rapist and chmo's in gen pop is a more fitting punishment. Why protect them by keeping them separate?

KB, actually I have read about the number of innocents in prison, including those on death row. And I believe those reports are accurate, and that there are lots of innocent people in prison.

My take on crimes of torture being worthy of the death penalty is mostly a feeling toward those who are truly guilty of torturing another person.

 

[KryptoBud]

So your point is that I (who doesn't have kids, I don't know where you think you read that I did), by raising kids (again, I'm not) in a home with medical marijuana, that is the kind of "drug addiction" that will cause these things in children, so I am a hypocrite for suggesting spanking is a problem? First, good luck pushing that level of reefer madness-esque anti-pot propaganda on this forum. If you can't figure out that living in a home with drug abuse usually means a hell of a lot more than pot, you probably shouldn't be on this site. Secondly, your argument is only hurting the people who DO have kids that they DO hit that ALSO live in their homes, as you are now suggesting they are, as drug addicts, unfit to raise children. Or did you forget that they are ALSO pot growers and users? Did you think me and Buck were the only ones who grow and smoke weed here? Did you forget what site this is??

I'm having a hard time believing that you can't understand the point I'm trying to make to you. Take a deep breath and try again, please. You are comparing a swat on the ass to people violently beating the fuck outta innocent children who can't defend themselves.

I fully understand what site that I'm on that's why I made the comparison. Can you see the stretch between someone who smokes a little weed and someone who sticks needles in their arms. I don't believe smoking weed makes you an unfit parent nor do i think slapping a kids hand when reaching for a hot stove makes you an unfit parent.

I don't have the time to scour the internet for studies relating pot use and child rearing, but I'd bet there are plenty of negative one's out there. You may have to go back 30 years to find them or studies calling it the gateway drug that'll lead to the use of hard drugs. A lot of those studies have been proven false over time.

 

[Ace Yonder]

I'm having a hard time believing that you can't understand the point I'm trying to make to you. Take a deep breath and try again, please. You are comparing a swat on the ass to people violently beating the fuck outta innocent children who can't defend themselves.

I fully understand what site that I'm on that's why I made the comparison. Can you see the stretch between someone who smokes a little weed and someone who sticks needles in their arms. I don't believe smoking weed makes you an unfit parent nor do i think slapping a kids hand when reaching for a hot stove makes you an unfit parent.

I don't have the time to scour the internet for studies relating pot use and child rearing, but I'd bet there are plenty of negative one's out there. You may have to go back 30 years to find them or studies calling it the gateway drug that'll lead to the use of hard drugs. A lot of those studies have been proven false over time.

And yet every current study about spanking shows that (a) Spanked children are much more prone to numerous behavioral and other problems at a statistically significant rate when compared to unspanked children, and the (b) Parents who spank their children are much more statistically likely to escalate the violence to higher levels (such as a closed fist, belt, or worse), and children who are spanked are also much more likely to be abused in more violent ways than spanking alone. SO what you have to know is that many of these people who say "I just swat my kid on the ass" actually do much much more than that (When they lose their temper, when spanking doesn't work, etc.), that is just the only thing they are willing to admit to. Every single study shows that spanked children, statistically, have more problems than unspanked children (even the studies where they couldn't eliminate prior behavior still show the correlation, and I have posted studies that DID eliminate for prior behavior and most other variables, including drug use and parental stability, and they all find links between spanking and negative outcomes. Every single one.)

 

[KryptoBud]

↑
Why does it cost more to prosecute someone for murder in a death penalty case opposed to live in prison?
If they cost $90,000 a year more to house, How is it not cheaper to execute them? A piece of rope is less than $20 and it can be used multiple times.


Well, ya know, there is that thing called due process of law... you can't just execute people the second they are convicted. Do you know how many innocent people we would wind up killing if we never gave anyone the chance for appeals?

NULL
Here's the beginning of this debate. I asked you a very simple question relating to a post you made. Instead of answering the question and explaining the reason of more cost for a death row trial you chose to make a smart ass comment. Then decided to twist word's and create statement's i never made. If you can find a post I made saying Kill people as soon as they're convicted with no appeals process please post it.

 

[Ace Yonder]

↑
Why does it cost more to prosecute someone for murder in a death penalty case opposed to live in prison?
If they cost $90,000 a year more to house, How is it not cheaper to execute them? A piece of rope is less than $20 and it can be used multiple times.


Well, ya know, there is that thing called due process of law... you can't just execute people the second they are convicted. Do you know how many innocent people we would wind up killing if we never gave anyone the chance for appeals?

NULL
Here's the beginning of this debate. I asked you a very simple question relating to a post you made. Instead of answering the question and explaining the reason of more cost for a death row trial you chose to make a smart ass comment. Then decided to twist word's and create statement's i never made. If you can find a post I made saying Kill people as soon as they're convicted with no appeals process please post it.

The way your question was phrased, to me read as "If it costs so much to keep them alive, why not execute them right away?" to which my response was meant to read "The appeals process, which takes time, is something we are all entitled to and I am not comfortable taking that away from potentially innocent people". You got a smart ass remark because you asked a question that you can easily use google to answer. Wanna know why it costs more? The answers are out there. I'm not here to do all your work for you. I'm sorry I misunderstood your first posts, but if you read it again I think you will see my assessment was reasonable considering the way you phrased your question.

Also, that was the middle of a different debate, the segue into child abuse happened at a different point, when Bama Boy said he would shoot a dog for biting a kid and then said he beat his friend's kid for hitting his dog.

 

[KryptoBud]

KB, actually I have read about the number of innocents in prison, including those on death row. And I believe those reports are accurate, and that there are lots of innocent people in prison.

My take on crimes of torture being worthy of the death penalty is mostly a feeling toward those who are truly guilty of torturing another person.

I'm not against the death penalty. I think if there is DNA or a confession there's no need for taxpayers to foot the bill to keep these cocksucker's alive for xx amount of years.
I've seen a documentary recently about a guy in Wisconsin who spent 18 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit. I'm not sure how old it was, but when he was convicted there was no DNA evidence. Once DNA testing came into play it still took years for his appeal to free him. This wasn't a death sentence case but spending 18 years in prison as a rapist i bet there were days he'd rather been dead. Today in a lot of cases there's DNA that makes wrongful imprisonment pretty much impossible. I don't have a problem eliminating these people. If people think they should be given 5 years or so to clear their name somehow that's reasonable to me, 20 plus years not so much.

 

[Ace Yonder]

I'm not against the death penalty. I think if there is DNA or a confession there's no need for taxpayers to foot the bill to keep these cocksucker's alive for xx amount of years.
I've seen a documentary recently about a guy in Wisconsin who spent 18 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit. I'm not sure how old it was, but when he was convicted there was no DNA evidence. Once DNA testing came into play it still took years for his appeal to free him. This wasn't a death sentence case but spending 18 years in prison as a rapist i bet there were days he'd rather been dead. Today in a lot of cases there's DNA that makes wrongful imprisonment pretty much impossible. I don't have a problem eliminating these people. If people think they should be given 5 years or so to clear their name somehow that's reasonable to me, 20 plus years not so much.

I believe you're talking about Making a Murderer. Great documentary, almost as good as The Jinx. Did you watch the whole thing? If so, how would you feel if they executed Brendan Dassey (The nephew)? He "confessed", but we know that the crime didn't happen at all in the way he described it, and it is pretty clear (especially if you look up the full interviews) that his confession was coached and forced in a similar way to the confession was coerced from Jessie Misskelley in the West Memphis Three case. Have an authority figure interrogate a person with sub par intelligence for long enough and you can get them to say just about anything to get it to stop. False confessions aren't that uncommon, and just knowing what I know about them I think I would need more proof than that to execute someone.

 

[april]

First, I said find me a study (an article is not a study), finding one doctor who is skeptical about whether some of the studies actually proved causality does not qualify as a study that shows that spanked children don't grow up with problems (EVERY study says that they do, even the quote you provided just says they aren't positive spanking is the reason WHY they grow up with problems, it never claims they don't grow up worse off than unspanked kids because it is an undeniable fact that they do). By the way, did you even bother to read to the end of the article you quoted from? Maybe you did and that's why you didn't provide the URL, thinking it would stop me from finding it. For the rest of the class, this is how your "pro spanking study"(Actually just an article) ends:

"So if hard numbers can't prove that spanking is good or bad or safe or dangerous, perhaps it's not a data issue to begin with. The question of whether spanking works, or is safe, is beside the point. Maybe the question should be "Is it really, absolutely necessary?" And, given the moral Pandora's box that it unlocks, the less fraught options at your disposal for addressing childish misbehavior, and the fact that your child is watching, waiting and learning from your decision, the answer seems clearly to just be no."

So, your BEST evidence actually agrees with me. Bravo!

Wow ur creepy as fuck..u went hunting a portion of an article written by an anti spankers who speaks about studies that disagree with his views to copy a portion of his varying opinion ...Bravo urself. .need a gold star??..ur arguing that my opinion is wrong because u think ur opinion is right. .I'm not on a forum to quote other people. ..I do just fine with my own words..anyways funs over I had a tense day with baby doctor appointments and needed a release. ..politics section always helps lol

 

[Ace Yonder]

Wow ur creepy as fuck..u went hunting a portion of an article written by an anti spankers who speaks about studies that disagree with his views to copy a portion of his varying opinion ...Bravo urself. .need a gold star??..ur arguing that my opinion is wrong because u think ur opinion is right. .I'm not on a forum to quote other people. ..I do just fine with my own words..anyways funs over I had a tense day with baby doctor appointments and needed a release. ..politics section always helps lol

No, I asked you to provide a study that shows spanking doesn't lead to negative outcomes, and you quoted part of an article that is, when all is said and done, against spanking. You tried to cut a teeny snippet out of the middle to "prove" your point, and failed miserably. And "hunting" it down wasn't very hard, I just googled what you cut and pasted and it came right up. I guess for someone who does as little research as you do, that's a lot of "hunting". If I can find it with a single right click, I don't really consider that "hunting" for anything. But then again, I actually spend time researching these issues rather than just assuming that I know best. But you keep doing you.

 

[KryptoBud]

The way your question was phrased, to me read as "If it costs so much to keep them alive, why not execute them right away?" to which my response was meant to read "The appeals process, which takes time, is something we are all entitled to and I am not comfortable taking that away from potentially innocent people". You got a smart ass remark because you asked a question that you can easily use google to answer. Wanna know why it costs more? The answers are out there. I'm not here to do all your work for you. I'm sorry I misunderstood your first posts, but if you read it again I think you will see my assessment was reasonable considering the way you phrased your question.

Also, that was the middle of a different debate, the segue into child abuse happened at a different point, when Bama Boy said he would shoot a dog for biting a kid and then said he beat his friend's kid for hitting his dog.

And yet every current study about spanking shows that (a) Spanked children are much more prone to numerous behavioral and other problems at a statistically significant rate when compared to unspanked children, and the (b) Parents who spank their children are much more statistically likely to escalate the violence to higher levels (such as a closed fist, belt, or worse), and children who are spanked are also much more likely to be abused in more violent ways than spanking alone. SO what you have to know is that many of these people who say "I just swat my kid on the ass" actually do much much more than that (When they lose their temper, when spanking doesn't work, etc.), that is just the only thing they are willing to admit to. Every single study shows that spanked children, statistically, have more problems than unspanked children (even the studies where they couldn't eliminate prior behavior still show the correlation, and I have posted studies that DID eliminate for prior behavior and most other variables, including drug use and parental stability, and they all find links between spanking and negative outcomes. Every single one.)

The point is there was a time when studies about weed were all negative. When was kid you could smoke cigarettes indoors they had smoking section on planes and in restaurants. Nobody questioned it at the time.Things change in time. If you were to look at past generations I'd think older generations were subjected to more physical punishment. I haven't done any research but if i had to guess i'd bet kids,teens young adults are more violent now than 50 years ago. There are a lot of factors that could be responsible for it beyond discipline. I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

 

[Ace Yonder]

The point is there was a time when studies about weed were all negative. When was kid you could smoke cigarettes indoors they had smoking section on planes and in restaurants. Nobody questioned it at the time.Things change in time. If you were to look at past generations I'd think older generations were subjected to more physical punishment. I haven't done any research but if i had to guess i'd bet kids,teens young adults are more violent now than 50 years ago. There are a lot of factors that could be responsible for it beyond discipline. I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

I guess. The only thing I will say is that I take issue with that particular line of reasoning in that I don't think that because studies in the past were flawed we have to assume that studies now are also flawed. We are more intelligent as a society than we used to be, we have a much larger base of information at our fingertips, we are better at analyzing large sets of data, and we know a lot more about psychology and the effects of trauma on the brain. It reminds me of people who say "Hey, I know all the studies say that Cellphones aren't linked to causing cancer and vaccines aren't linked to causing autism, but they also used to say cigarettes were good for you! So why should I trust these studies?" It's like, well, yeah, but that was a long time ago and we are way better at just about every aspect of science and research now. The fact is, current studies ARE more valid than old ones, because we have gotten better at studying things. I don't have a quote on hand about it, but Physicist Brian Greene does a great job of explaining this (Why old flawed studies are not a good reason to doubt current studies) when he was interviewed on the You Made it Weird podcast (I believe he was discussing why he feels that Genetically Modified Foods [Although it could have been cellphones, can't quite remember] aren't dangerous and was asked "But didn't we used to think Cigarettes weren't dangerous?" and he explains why that is a flawed line of reasoning).

 

[NLXSK1]

↑
Why does it cost more to prosecute someone for murder in a death penalty case opposed to live in prison?
If they cost $90,000 a year more to house, How is it not cheaper to execute them? A piece of rope is less than $20 and it can be used multiple times.


Well, ya know, there is that thing called due process of law... you can't just execute people the second they are convicted. Do you know how many innocent people we would wind up killing if we never gave anyone the chance for appeals?

NULL
Here's the beginning of this debate. I asked you a very simple question relating to a post you made. Instead of answering the question and explaining the reason of more cost for a death row trial you chose to make a smart ass comment. Then decided to twist word's and create statement's i never made. If you can find a post I made saying Kill people as soon as they're convicted with no appeals process please post it.

There is all this discussion about pain and suffering and how to kill someone painlessly. I am really surprised that we dont suffocate people. Not like a pillow over the head, just put them in a room and pump out the oxygen and let them fall asleep. No pain, no cost and you can make sure they are really really dead so no mistakes.

 

[BamaBoyBeRolling]

There is all this discussion about pain and suffering and how to kill someone painlessly. I am really surprised that we dont suffocate people. Not like a pillow over the head, just put them in a room and pump out the oxygen and let them fall asleep. No pain, no cost and you can make sure they are really really dead so no mistakes.

I would rather have them use a short rope so it doesn't snap their neck, but that idea for the room is a good one maybe have one that pumps co2 in a high enough concentration to do the job quicker.