Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Texas to execute another probably innocent man
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
I have yet to hear anybody make a valid argument against capital punishment.

If true, that is really more of an indictment of you than the anti-capital-punishment movement.

It is sorta like saying "I have yet to hear anybody make a valid argument for relativity".

This is nothing but unsupported base assertion. Einstein's theories, on the other hand, are not.

You are claiming that nobody has ever made an argument against capital punishment that is not a base assertion? That sounds like you are making a base assertion.

By the way, what exactly is a "base assertion"? I can't seem to find any explanation of the term on the interweb. Bare assertion is mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Forensic evidence unmatched to a perpetrator. This does not change the fact that his testimony was not the only evidence.

Hilarious! You are saying he was convicted on the basis of (a) his words and (b) evidence that was unmatched to him or anyone else. Unless American juries are suddenly in the business of convicting people based on evidence unmatched to the accused or anyone else, some people might reasonably conclude he was convicted on the basis of his words alone.

Quote:
Nor does it change the fact that the article lied when it said his "false words" were used to convict him. It was his "true words" (the ones that matched the forensic evidence) that convicted him.

Even more hilarious! I can't tell which absurd line of reasoning we are in: (a) If the suspect says he shot the victim with a rifle, but the crime scene shows the victim was shot with a shotgun, BoneKracker reasons "shot is shot!" and votes to convict on the basis of the suspect's "true words;" or (b) BoneKracker forgets that false words in a confession should be used to acquit, not to convict.

Quote:
There is also nothing to support the claim that he is "probably innocent". At best he is "possibly innocent and possibly guilty". It's a question of reasonable doubt, and that's a question that only a carefully-selected, physically present, and fully cognizant jury can address. Even appeals courts defer to juries on the question of credibility of testimony, which, in this case, was a major consideration.

Nonsense: the fact that he misstated basic details of the crime (like how many people were involved, or whether he was wearing a mask, or how he gained entrance to the crime scene) supports the claim that he probably didn't do it, aka he is probably innocent.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16090
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdeininger wrote:
I didn't say it was hard to believe, I was just wondering why. BoneKracker did a good job at pointing out what he may or may not have done though, so I can see why an attourney would tell him to confess regardless of whether he did it or not...

My original statement still stands though. After 30-odd years on death row, hitting the needle just seems like a better idea than fucking around in courts again.
My bad. I interpreted "wonder" in a manner suggesting "innocent people don't confess." It is a common theme by the Judge Dredd "Kill 'em Now" crowd.

As for the 30 yr part, I think it is difficult to evaluate that until you've been in that position. Personally, I'd want to go down doing all I could to prove the system the failure that it is. Unfortunately, the Dredd-folk seem to think any case which is turned over is proof that no wrongful executions have or can occur.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
I have yet to hear anybody make a valid argument against capital punishment.

If true, that is really more of an indictment of you than the anti-capital-punishment movement.

It is sorta like saying "I have yet to hear anybody make a valid argument for relativity".

This is nothing but unsupported base assertion. Einstein's theories, on the other hand, are not.

You are claiming that nobody has ever made an argument against capital punishment that is not a base assertion? That sounds like you are making a base assertion.

I meant that your first sentence in that post is about one degree removed from a base assertion, which obvious. But, if you'd like to test that, we can examine it more closely.

richk449 wrote:
By the way, what exactly is a "base assertion"? I can't seem to find any explanation of the term on the interweb. Bare assertion is mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

I know it as a logically unsupported assertion (i.e., it is at the "base" of a hierarchy of reasoning, unsupported by evidence or logic). Base assertions are like axioms, but not necessarily "generally accepted". Maybe I've bastardized "bare assertion", because I can't find it anywhere either. :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
I have yet to hear anybody make a valid argument against capital punishment.

If true, that is really more of an indictment of you than the anti-capital-punishment movement.

It is sorta like saying "I have yet to hear anybody make a valid argument for relativity".

This is nothing but unsupported base assertion. Einstein's theories, on the other hand, are not.

You are claiming that nobody has ever made an argument against capital punishment that is not a base assertion? That sounds like you are making a base assertion.

I meant that your first sentence in that post is about one degree removed from a base assertion, which obvious. But, if you'd like to test that, we can examine it more closely.

No, I agree with that. The unwritten bare assertion is that there are, in fact, valid arguments against capital punishment.

However, the assertion does not need to be bare. I have made arguments against capital punishment in previous threads, none of which fall into the easily dismissed categories you have listed here as invalid. Furthermore, there are good arguments made by others. Which is why I say that if you have never heard of a valid argument against capital punishment, that is your problem, not mine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Forensic evidence unmatched to a perpetrator. This does not change the fact that his testimony was not the only evidence.

Hilarious! You are saying he was convicted on the basis of (a) his words and (b) evidence that was unmatched to him or anyone else. Unless American juries are suddenly in the business of convicting people based on evidence unmatched to the accused or anyone else, some people might reasonably conclude he was convicted on the basis of his words alone.

What's hilarious is your logic. Your thinking here is the logical equivalent of "my wife got pregnant all by herself, and I had nothing to do with it". Yes, it is.

Neither his words nor the forensic evidence were of value alone; it was their conjunction which was. His words alone were not the only evidence used to convict him. Therefore, the article's claim is false. This is not even arguable.

dmitchell wrote:
Quote:
Nor does it change the fact that the article lied when it said his "false words" were used to convict him. It was his "true words" (the ones that matched the forensic evidence) that convicted him.

Even more hilarious! I can't tell which absurd line of reasoning we are in: (a) If the suspect says he shot the victim with a rifle, but the crime scene shows the victim was shot with a shotgun, BoneKracker reasons "shot is shot!" and votes to convict on the basis of the suspect's "true words;" or (b) BoneKracker forgets that false words in a confession should be used to acquit, not to convict.

BoneKracker has nothing to do with it. If that's what the jury did, then that's what I'd say, and that's what an objective, intellectually honest journalist (as opposed to an activist agitator) would also say. But this is beside the point. The real question is why you posted an article that was so obviously one-sided, and not even bother to get the basic facts of the case first.

dmitchell wrote:
Quote:
There is also nothing to support the claim that he is "probably innocent". At best he is "possibly innocent and possibly guilty". It's a question of reasonable doubt, and that's a question that only a carefully-selected, physically present, and fully cognizant jury can address. Even appeals courts defer to juries on the question of credibility of testimony, which, in this case, was a major consideration.

Nonsense: the fact that he misstated basic details of the crime (like how many people were involved, or whether he was wearing a mask, or how he gained entrance to the crime scene) supports the claim that he probably didn't do it, aka he is probably innocent.

Faulty deduction. Those facts may or may not make it less likely that he's guilty, but they don't outweigh the other facts (some of which I outlined above). For example, we know he was trying to "cut a deal" to get out of having stolen a motorcycle. We know he was lying (one way or another) about having been an accomplice to the crime who sat out in the parking lot while this other dude (who had an alibi and who happened to look like a sketch drawn by the severely brain damaged victim who initially said the perp was a "20 foot tall black man", and who couldn't even identify the same individual in a line-up). We don't have the tapes to listen to, but the jury decided he was trying to frame the other guy, that he had accidentally revealed knowledge of details of the events inside that were not known to the public. Then, when confronted with this, he changed his story and admitted he'd been inside, but still wanted to "cut a deal" to testify against the other guy in exchange for leniency. So there is an explanation for the change in his story, and that makes it inconsequential.

The mismatches between his testimony and what the so-called "witness" testified to the best of his medically documented, severely brain-damaged recollection, are also pretty easy to understand. While that may have been raised by the defense to cast doubt, I can easily seeing a jury simply dismissing the brain-damaged witness' testimony altogether as unreliable and not credible.

A reasonable objection to his conviction, or at least his death sentence, could be made, based on whether the standards of proof necessary to support the death penalty had been met. But the article didn't make it. The article is trying, unsuccessfully, to argue that the guy is "probably innocent", and you appear to be standing up for the article. Instead, you should be arguing that he shouldn't have been sentenced to death, because "probably" isn't good enough for that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sugar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
I have yet to hear anybody make a valid argument against capital punishment. The most common are "killing is wrong" and "it's better to let them all go free (or live) than to incarcerate (execute) one man wrongly, and both arguments are logically unsupportable.


I've yet to hear anyone produce a convincing argument for capital punishment.

All I've heard is people quoting the bible and claiming 'an eye for an eye' and that it 'acts as a deterrence'.
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
I have made arguments against capital punishment in previous threads, none of which fall into the easily dismissed categories you have listed here as invalid. Furthermore, there are good arguments made by others. Which is why I say that if you have never heard of a valid argument against capital punishment, that is your problem, not mine.

Did I say it was other than my problem? It seemed to me I was lamenting.

I didn't mean any personal offense, but I don't recall hearing a sound argument against it from you. We must be in disagreement on one or more of the supporting points. Which of the standard arguments is yours?

a) killing is immoral / the flying spaghetti monster told us not to

b) it doesn't do any good / retributive justice isn't valid / it's nothing but revenge / it's not an effective deterrent

c) if an innocent man is (or could be) executed, capital punishment must stop

d) it costs more than lifetime incarceration

e) it's not okay for the collective to do harmful things to people, only individuals should harm other people

f) the admirable, enlightened, secular and progressive Europeans will look down on us as primitive

Those are all failed arguments, in my opinion. Maybe I didn't get yours in there?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sugar wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
I have yet to hear anybody make a valid argument against capital punishment. The most common are "killing is wrong" and "it's better to let them all go free (or live) than to incarcerate (execute) one man wrongly, and both arguments are logically unsupportable.


I've yet to hear anyone produce a convincing argument for capital punishment.

All I've heard is people quoting the bible and claiming 'an eye for an eye' and that it 'acts as a deterrence'.

You're out of your depth here and degrading the signal to noise ratio.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sugar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
I have made arguments against capital punishment in previous threads, none of which fall into the easily dismissed categories you have listed here as invalid. Furthermore, there are good arguments made by others. Which is why I say that if you have never heard of a valid argument against capital punishment, that is your problem, not mine.

Did I say it was other than my problem? It seemed to me I was lamenting.

I didn't mean any personal offense, but I don't recall hearing a sound argument against it from you. We must be in disagreement on one or more of the supporting points. Which of the standard arguments is yours?

a) killing is immoral / the flying spaghetti monster told us not to

b) it doesn't do any good / retributive justice isn't valid / it's nothing but revenge / it's not an effective deterrent

c) if an innocent man is (or could be) executed, capital punishment must stop

d) it costs more than lifetime incarceration

e) it's not okay for the collective to do harmful things to people, only individuals should harm other people

f) the admirable, enlightened, secular and progressive Europeans will look down on us as primitive

Those are all failed arguments, in my opinion. Maybe I didn't get yours in there?


g) capital punishment creates only harm, and creates no good, and so is unethical compared to other actions that could be taken that cause no harm but do good (the utilitarian argument).

h)it's unethical to kill someone in order to create a society that is 'safer', because you're using them as a means to an end (the first Kantian/Deontological argument)

i) it's unethical, because no rational being is capable of murdering another. Therefore, a convicted killer is no longer a rational entity. You cannot hold a non-rational entity accountable for their own actions. It's the same as holding a cat accountable for killing a bird. (the second Kantian/Deontological argument)
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sugar wrote:
g) capital punishment creates only harm, and creates no good, and so is unethical compared to other actions that could be taken that cause no harm but do good (the utilitarian argument).

Falls under (b).

sugar wrote:
h)it's unethical to kill someone in order to create a society that is 'safer', because you're using them as a means to an end (the first Kantian/Deontological argument)

Falls under (e).

sugar wrote:
i) it's unethical, because no rational being is capable of murdering another. Therefore, a convicted killer is no longer a rational entity. You cannot hold a non-rational entity accountable for their own actions. It's the same as holding a cat accountable for killing a bird. (the second Kantian/Deontological argument)

Falls under (a).

I could go into details, but have done so before. It is my opinion that, when examined rationally and objectively, each of these fall apart logically, and most of them rely upon one or more bare assertions of norms and mores drawn from the Christian religious tradition.

I'm not saying it's okay to run around killing people. I'm saying there are circumstances where it is morally and ethically correct to take another human life, and one of these circumstances is in response to certain extremely grievous crimes for which it is otherwise impossible by a very great margin to make restitution to the victims and society or be confidently rehabilitated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sugar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
sugar wrote:
g) capital punishment creates only harm, and creates no good, and so is unethical compared to other actions that could be taken that cause no harm but do good (the utilitarian argument).

Falls under (b).

sugar wrote:
h)it's unethical to kill someone in order to create a society that is 'safer', because you're using them as a means to an end (the first Kantian/Deontological argument)

Falls under (e).

sugar wrote:
i) it's unethical, because no rational being is capable of murdering another. Therefore, a convicted killer is no longer a rational entity. You cannot hold a non-rational entity accountable for their own actions. It's the same as holding a cat accountable for killing a bird. (the second Kantian/Deontological argument)

Falls under (a).

I could go into details, but have done so before. It is my opinion that, when examined rationally and objectively, each of these fall apart logically, and most of them rely upon one or more bare assertions of norms and mores drawn from the Christian religious tradition.

I'm not saying it's okay to run around killing people. I'm saying there are circumstances where it is morally and ethically correct to take another human life, and one of these circumstances is in response to certain extremely grievous crimes for which it is otherwise impossible by a very great margin to make restitution to the victims and society or be confidently rehabilitated.


:roll: :roll:

I don't know why you bother posting if you're not even going to read the post your wishing to counter.
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sugar wrote:
:roll: :roll:

I don't know why you bother posting if you're not even going to read the post your wishing to counter.


Mind reader! This is why we (rationals) stopped responding to your threads.
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sugar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
sugar wrote:
:roll: :roll:

I don't know why you bother posting if you're not even going to read the post your wishing to counter.


Mind reader! This is why we (rationals) stopped responding to your threads.


:roll: :roll:

also, you didn't. You're the only ones that reply to the anti-republican threads.
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
I have yet to hear anybody make a valid argument against capital punishment.

If true, that is really more of an indictment of you than the anti-capital-punishment movement.

It is sorta like saying "I have yet to hear anybody make a valid argument for relativity".

This is nothing but unsupported base assertion. Einstein's theories, on the other hand, are not.


einstein's theories are based on a handful of postulates.

And a shitload of observations and empirical experimentation.

There isn't even basic logic supporting anti-capital punishment. It typically boils down to "killing is bad, because I just know it is". Other invalid arguments include, "it's better to free a hundred guilty men than punish one innocent man", and "it doesn't do any good / serve any purpose" (a subordinate argument of which is "it's not an effective deterrent"). We've discussed all these in here, and they all fall apart under any kind of objective scrutiny. Maybe somebody will eventually come up with something. I'm tired of it.


killing is bad because living in a society where killing is permitted isn't one in which we can thrive and live happily. People want security and they don't want to live in a society where their lives are likely to be threatened. It's pretty basic.

Furthermore, I don't know what you want as "proof". From my understanding of your criteria, there is no proof of any moral statement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sugar wrote:
:roll: :roll:

I don't know why you bother posting if you're not even going to read the post your wishing to counter.
he's right though, you really did only rephrase arguments in BKs list and not provide new ones.

juniper wrote:
killing is bad because living in a society where killing is permitted isn't one in which we can thrive and live happily. People want security and they don't want to live in a society where their lives are likely to be threatened. It's pretty basic.
that argument works precisely the same for both sides. see if someone ran around raping 3 year olds, i'd wager the average joe would agree that it creates security if the guy wakes up to a gun to his head. i'd wager it'd even make it easier for people to live happily. and allowing for the death penalty in your legal system is not the same as "permitting killing." it's merely a concession that some people are just beyond hope. they're so far gone, it's better just to put them down.

although personally i'd much rather give them the option of contributing back to society by volunteering for dangerous medical experiments or a military suicide squad. ah well, can't have it all.

juniper wrote:
Furthermore, I don't know what you want as "proof". From my understanding of your criteria, there is no proof of any moral statement.
yep, there isn't. that's the point. so you might as well stick to what works. and allowing for the death penalty sure doesn't work any better or worse than not allowing for the death penalty. which in turn means, you might at least give the families of the victims some personal satisfaction.
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdeininger wrote:
that argument works precisely the same for both sides. see if someone ran around raping 3 year olds, i'd wager the average joe would agree that it creates security if the guy wakes up to a gun to his head. i'd wager it'd even make it easier for people to live happily. and allowing for the death penalty in your legal system is not the same as "permitting killing." it's merely a concession that some people are just beyond hope. they're so far gone, it's better just to put them down.


locking them up for life provides the same amount of security. you don't need to kill them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
mdeininger wrote:
that argument works precisely the same for both sides. see if someone ran around raping 3 year olds, i'd wager the average joe would agree that it creates security if the guy wakes up to a gun to his head. i'd wager it'd even make it easier for people to live happily. and allowing for the death penalty in your legal system is not the same as "permitting killing." it's merely a concession that some people are just beyond hope. they're so far gone, it's better just to put them down.


locking them up for life provides the same amount of security. you don't need to kill them.

Raping 3 year olds doesn't attract the death penalty by itself anyway, not in the US, so I don't know where that argument comes from.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
mdeininger wrote:
that argument works precisely the same for both sides. see if someone ran around raping 3 year olds, i'd wager the average joe would agree that it creates security if the guy wakes up to a gun to his head. i'd wager it'd even make it easier for people to live happily. and allowing for the death penalty in your legal system is not the same as "permitting killing." it's merely a concession that some people are just beyond hope. they're so far gone, it's better just to put them down.


locking them up for life provides the same amount of security. you don't need to kill them.
if you intend to lock them up for life, you might as well kill them. they're dead to the world, they can't contribute to society in any positive or negative way and they're a money sink because you still have to feed them, clothe them and guard them.

and then they might break out of prison. they definitely won't break out if they're dead. so it's less secure to lock em up.

so, killing them is cheaper (if done properly) and more secure.

sikpuppy wrote:
Raping 3 year olds doesn't attract the death penalty by itself anyway, not in the US, so I don't know where that argument comes from.
it's the old "think of the children" thing. also, the argument was about the death penalty in principle, not specifically in the US. last I checked the US doesn't use guns for the death penalty neither.
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdeininger wrote:
juniper wrote:
mdeininger wrote:
that argument works precisely the same for both sides. see if someone ran around raping 3 year olds, i'd wager the average joe would agree that it creates security if the guy wakes up to a gun to his head. i'd wager it'd even make it easier for people to live happily. and allowing for the death penalty in your legal system is not the same as "permitting killing." it's merely a concession that some people are just beyond hope. they're so far gone, it's better just to put them down.


locking them up for life provides the same amount of security. you don't need to kill them.
if you intend to lock them up for life, you might as well kill them. they're dead to the world, they can't contribute to society in any positive or negative way and they're a money sink because you still have to feed them, clothe them and guard them.

and then they might break out of prison. they definitely won't break out if they're dead. so it's less secure to lock em up.

so, killing them is cheaper (if done properly) and more secure.

sikpuppy wrote:
Raping 3 year olds doesn't attract the death penalty by itself anyway, not in the US, so I don't know where that argument comes from.
it's the old "think of the children" thing. also, the argument was about the death penalty in principle, not specifically in the US. last I checked the US doesn't use guns for the death penalty neither.

So are you advocating the death penalty for child molesters? Where does the gun come into it anyway? Why would a child molester be asleep when he is being arrested, or are you talking about lynch mobs? Sorry, I just think you are making a number of points that deviate from...whatever it is you are arguing.

The only point you seem to have is that a dead criminal won't offend. Which is fairly obvious, but not a good debating point when talking about the death penalty since not all crimes attract the death penalty even in the harshest regime.

Oh and, proper killing? I'm sorry, what's a proper killing, and why is an improper killing as expensive as a life sentence?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
So are you advocating the death penalty for child molesters? Where does the gun come into it anyway? Why would a child molester be asleep when he is being arrested, or are you talking about lynch mobs? Sorry, I just think you are making a number of points that deviate from...whatever it is you are arguing.
i'm advocating the death penalty for anyone that is "too far gone." i'd consider a serial rapist to be of that status. i'd also advocate just using a gun or knife instead of more expensive methods and i'm all in favour of letting the perp choose a surefire suicidal socially helpful act instead.

sikpuppy wrote:
The only point you seem to have is that a dead criminal won't offend. Which is fairly obvious, but not a good debating point when talking about the death penalty since not all crimes attract the death penalty even in the harshest regime.
right, because "it's more secure and less expensive" is totally the same argument as "they won't offend when they're dead". nice try.

sikpuppy wrote:
Oh and, proper killing? I'm sorry, what's a proper killing, and why is an improper killing as expensive as a life sentence?
keeping people in prison costs money: they need food, guards and clothes. properly killing them is cheap: you take a 2 dollar knife and cut their throat or just shoot em with a single bullet. improperly killing them would be wasting gigawatts of power on the electric chair to do the killing, or using expensive chemicals for the job. both of those might be more expensive than keeping them alive for a couple years depending on how long they do live.
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who shoots them? They would become a victim. Who knifes them? They would become a victim. There is a system to prevent any one person knowing that they pushed the lever that either connects the current to the chair or injects the fatal dosage, since more than one person does this simultaneously.

You said "if you intend to lock them up for life, you might as well kill them." and "and then they might break out of prison. they definitely won't break out if they're dead." unless I read that wrong. Which I didn't.

Your solutions sound great, then reality dawns and they just seem like a tabloid letters page solution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
Who shoots them? They would become a victim. Who knifes them? They would become a victim. There is a system to prevent any one person knowing that they pushed the lever that either connects the current to the chair or injects the fatal dosage, since more than one person does this simultaneously.
and that's bogus. there's still someone's finger at some form of trigger, you're just creating a fancy illusion that there wasn't. they don't become a victim just because you know who killed them. who came up with that crap?

sikpuppy wrote:
You said "if you intend to lock them up for life, you might as well kill them." and "and then they might break out of prison. they definitely won't break out if they're dead." unless I read that wrong. Which I didn't.
no you read that quite right. if you intend to lock em up for life, might as well kill them, lest they break out. these two quotes were parts of two distinct arguments: the first being it's more expensive and also just plain ol' pointless not to kill them, and the second being it's less secure not to kill them. obviously by killing them you solve both problems and additionally they become unable to repeat their actions. what's your point?

sikpuppy wrote:
Your solutions sound great, then reality dawns and they just seem like a tabloid letters page solution.
uh, no. here's the deal with that: if they worked in tabloids, the majority of people would love those arguments. since the people are supposed to run the country and set the laws so they feel secure... where's the problem again?
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdeininger wrote:
if you intend to lock them up for life, you might as well kill them. they're dead to the world, they can't contribute to society in any positive or negative way and they're a money sink because you still have to feed them, clothe them and guard them.


I guess we should do the same with the old, people who have gotten into accidents and gotten their legs severed, etc etc etc (as they fit the same description). :roll:

Quote:

and then they might break out of prison. they definitely won't break out if they're dead. so it's less secure to lock em up.


rarely happens.

Quote:

so, killing them is cheaper (if done properly) and more secure.


balancing justice with cost. justice should win, especially if the savings are minimal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nomilieu
n00b
n00b


Joined: 22 Nov 2011
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't buy the "dead to the world" argument against permanent imprisonment. They still interact with other prisoners, and some of those people will be set free. Besides, aren't they usually allowed to write letters and such?

Now, your idea about volunteering for dangerous medical experiments (or other deadly yet beneficial projects), I could get behind that. If someone's guilt has them wanting to help society and they can't stand living in prison for the rest of their lives, it makes sense to let them do something helpful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum